Step 1: Take a deep breath.Step 2: Try. Not. To. Make. Personal. Attacks.
Check state of shipbuilding budget and warfighting requirements.
Repeat steps 1 & 2.
Continue.
OK - Press Release time.
The Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin Corp. and Austal USA each a fixed-price incentive contract for the design and construction of a 10 ship block-buy, for a total of 20 littoral combat ships from fiscal 2010 through fiscal 2015.OK; calm.
The amount awarded to Lockheed Martin Corp. for fiscal 2010 littoral combat ships is $436,852,639. The amount awarded to Austal USA for the fiscal 2010 littoral combat ships is $432,069,883. Both contracts also include line items for nine additional ships, subject to Congressional appropriation of each year’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program requirements. When all 10 ships of each block buy are awarded, the value of the ship construction portion of the two contracts would be $3,620,625,192 for Lockheed Martin Corp., and $3,518,156,851 for Austal USA. The average cost of both variants including government-furnished equipment and margin for potential cost growth across the five year period is $440 million per ship.
No mention of mission module cost; combat systems integration; NLOS; ASW NMC toy boats; survivability; manning; endurance; habitability etc. Shiny happy people happy talk.
All is well.
Assume lotus position.
Light candle.
Strike bells and gong three times; spin Mani.
Quoteth el jefe;
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead praised the Navy’s plan to add both ship designs to the fleet: “The LCS is uniquely designed to win against 21st century threats in coastal waters posed by increasingly capable submarines, mines and swarming small craft. Both designs provide the capabilities our Navy needs, and each offers unique features that will provide fleet commanders with a high level of flexibility in employing these ships.”Cleansing breath.
Consult Proverbs 26:11.
Ease.
Release.
OK; Points:
1. What is unique about a large Corvette, a design and mission well over a century old?
2. What can it do with an ASW mission module that cannot support anything but itself in only the most calm and permissive waters?
3. MIW mission module. Really? That well developed, eh?
4. Swarming small craft? Should be able to hold its own as long as the 57mm and 30mm fully function with the combat systems ... but really - is that what we are buying for our shipbuilding buck?
5. Fleet Commander Flexibility. OK. C5F has four LCS with MIW mods in area X. History happens and they find themselves about 1 hr from needing to conduct ASUW; but C5F needs half of them to search for submarines 800KM away. How is that Mission Module swap out logistics and maintenance support looking?
One thing you will hear discussed on a regular basis will be the cost per unit in this announcement. This is what gets me twitchy the most as that is a stripped down LCS with no mission modules. Just the baseline model. It is like buying a baseline car with no radio, no AC, etc. You cannot compare per unit or per ton cost of LCS with FFG and DD/DDG that already are configured for full multi-mission operation, vice the uni-mission LCS. Remember, the quote does not represent the per unit cost even close. Even if it did - the tactical utility of the whole class is still snake bit.
Inside DC, there is a love of programatics and number games where costs are fudged and victory is seen as getting a check in the block with money attached - that is their battlefield. That is not why you have shipbuilding programs though. The goal of shipbuilding is to produce the best tradeoff between cost and capability and to give to the Sailors at sea the best ability to operate, fight, win, and survive in war at sea and power projection ashore.
That is the measure. By that measure, LCS continues to be a rolling disgrace.
I like what the GAO says; very Salamanderesque circa 2006 - but better late than never I guess:
To safeguard against excess quantities of ships and mission packages being purchased before their combined capabilities are demonstrated, we recommended in our August 2010 report that the Secretary of Defense update the LCS acquisition strategy to account for operational testing delays in the program and resequence planned purchases of ships and mission packages, as appropriate. The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation, stating that an updated schedule was under development to better align seaframe and mission module production milestones. However, it is unclear how the department’s concurrence with our recommendation can be reconciled against the Navy’s current request to increase the planned seaframe commitment, particularly since no operational testing involving mission packages—or any of their individual systems—has since taken place. Until mission package and operational testing progresses—and key mine countermeasures, surface warfare, and antisubmarine warfare systems are proven effective and suitable onboard seaframes—the Navy cannot be certain that the LCS will deliver the full capability desired. This risk would increase with a commitment to higher quantities. The Navy believes this increased commitment is appropriately balanced against competing risks in the program.Read the whole thing here.
...
... our analysis shows that developmental delays to individual systems have caused all of the LCS mission packages—mine countermeasures, surface warfare, and antisubmarine warfare—to experience test disruptions and procurement delays. In fact, none of the mission packages—either in partial or full configuration—has completed operational testing onboard an LCS seaframe.
1. Take deep breaths.
2. Center.
3. Peace.
In the end, the Navy will have a Corvette that will be able to contribute. How much and at what opportunity cost; well I think we know that. Talk to Fleet Commanders and N3s and ask them what they would rather have - 4 LCS of Mission Module of unknown type and quality, or 4 ABSALON/NANSEN/DE ZEVEN PROVINCIEN with American crews.
My nogg'n nogg'l's.
132 comments:
So.... translated... that means when the ship hits the fan (eventually,) Roughead wants his name attached for all posterity to what could be a collossal failure and a potential disaster for the shipmates aboard? (Someone put a dye marker on everyone who checked off on this thing and see where they go work when they turn in their uniforms for a suit and tie.) Not accusing anyone specifically... but....
Someone put a dye marker on everyone who checked off on this thing and see where they go work when they turn in their uniforms for a suit and tie.
But DB!
Think of the mortgage!
The kids' school!
Its HARD to live on retired FOGO pay!!!!!
YGTBSM! What a bunch of jet-propelled bullshit! Haul every SOB that had a hand in this decision in front of the NEW Congress and make those stupid thieving bastards explain how they could piss away the Navy's future on these useless overpriced underrarmed piecies of crap.
As soon as the new Congress is sworn in, the letters need to start pouring in to Rep. West and Marco Rubio. Let them know we got you there, now it's time to deliver on the promises you made.
Oh, by the way, LCS-2 is STILL sitting at the pier with a mechanical casualty. How do I know? Inside info? Hell no, she's got an oil boom around her! Ask any CHENG or MPA what that means.
lol
That's all I can come up with. And it's one of those crazy manical "i can't believe we're doin' this" laughs.
Its time for 20 facepalms from the poor officers that will be commanding those ships (possibly at war not on drugs,terror or pirates but a nation with real navy....)
What have I done to deserve it?
Sure as rain...
Some day... one or more of these ships will end up looking like this...Because thats the essence of Littoral COMBAT...Swift and Lethal.
Like then, a commander will have no choice but to deploy them in an threat enviroment they never were designed for.
Because thats all the USN will have to put into the fight.
I can see it now. The first commisioned will be the USN Hood!
LCS-1 deploys all over the World. Carries approx 51,000 gallons of fuel for GAS TURBINES.
NSC USCG deploys all along West Coast from Mexico to Alaska. Carries 225,000 gallons of fuel !
DDG-51 class: ubiquitous !!! carries over 450,000 gallons of turbine fuel.
So.... let the facts speak.
LCS hull form can NOT grow, or become heavier. What to do with LCS ??????
Yeah...But I bet it looks....
AWESOME!
Just picture LCS-20, the USS Roughead, escorting the USS Murtha into harm's way...
Not exactly Taffy 3 at Samar Island, more like the Spanish at Manila Bay...
Is Roughead the name of a "mid-sized" city?
What to do with LCS? Hell, that's easy. See below.
LCS-2 is Byron's -now quite well funded- retirement plan....
how 'bout these names for Littoral Ships (drop the word COMBAT).
USS JELLYFISH
USS SHRIMP
USS CRAYFISH
USS MOLUSK
USS CRAB
USS SINK
all very Nautical sounding names .
that pic should be nailed to the LCS builders and CNO doors!
LCS-1, 3.
the SUPER HORNET of the seas .....
Just as Super Hornets almost NEVER go supersonic, expect LCS to also stay below one third max speed.
Super Hornets. Carry many large, heavy fuel tanks instead of many weapons.
LCS-1,3 Carry many TSCE computer systems, instead of fuel or weapons.
Hmmm. Maybe they were both designed by graduates of Defense Acquisition Schools ???
NAVSEA, NAVAIR, CNO: Educated into oblivion ......
I see a similar conversation to that one in future:
Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland
Yeah, it looks like the 57 at 0 elevation could fire a round OVER the 0-3 of the FFG in front of it. And the jackstaff? Mounted aft of the gun...
If they put beer in cans made from LCS it'll still taste like crap.
RIDDLE for COMNAVSEASYSCOM HQ, Washington, D.C.
On the attached photo and article, what is LCS-2 doing that LCS-1,3,5,7,9 will NEVER ever ever be able to do ?
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/scoopdeck/2010/08/30/lcs-2-returns/
HINT: Although LCS-2 class can carry 4 times more fuel than LCS-1 class, in this photo, she is just taking on a small load, which just happens to exceed the full capacity of LCS-1 class.
(sorry, you have to be blatant with your Hints when you're coaxing COM NAV SEA SYS COM. )
Think they can figure out this riddle ?
Too bad we don't have the Holy Handgrenade as backup anywhere in the Oplan though.....
I'd rather "USS Toadfish".
An oil boom is all you're going on? A boom means nothing. Booms are SOP all the time.
How about scaffolding on top what looks like the uptakes?
I accually like the LCS-2. The Trimaran design that is there is just something awesome about having a huge deck space like that.
Aluminum hull not so much considering the troubles (Huge cracks) with the Tico's and such.
Someone remind me why you need a ship to go 55 knts again? Dont we have things that...fly now? Arent these ships supposed to have them?
God the LCS program makes me just hang my head in disbelief.
Its not a warship its a dang corvette. And im not talking about the class. Hell most corvettes could kick LCS a$$.
Of course we do! Its called Zumwalt........... >:o
James...
True of False.
The LCS-2 can operate H-53's off its deck.
I thought it was something you could order at a bordello.
oddly enough, they never used to be SOP. the modern navy leaks oil?
It's SOP that whenever there is shipyard maintenance that they put a boom in place. EPA and all that. If a freaking piece of plastic goes over the side, there's all kinds of fainting going on. We even have to put up contaiment to catch dust when we grind aluminum or paint off while working the skin of the ship.
Is it time to roll out my drum, and start pounding it to encourage the buying of NANSENs?
Like it or not, LCS is here to stay. Maybe we should focus our thoughts on how best to use them, instead of sniping.
I was doing that four years ago :(
the builders didn't conceptualize it and they didn't design it. it's the Navy's plan and the Navy's ship.
Water skiing or hauling lots of beer? At least it can complete THAT mission.
I thought you meant "Allow her stern to ride high"
IIRC from here or elsewhere, LCS-2 cannot, but others in that class probably will be able to carry 53's.
at full throttle (whatever that speed might be), using just the 2 humongous GAS TURBINES (one of which broke completely 2 months ago already on USS FREEDOM), you can only pull water ski junkie's for approx 11.7 hours.
That's the amount of TIME to go from 100 percent gas turbine fuel load, all the way down to zero percent. ( Are commanding officer's permitted to run their fuel below 30 percent ? or all the way to 000 percent ?).
Remember the Jr High School formula ?
DISTANCE = RATE X TIME
Rate can be argued, but TIME is fixed at around 11.7 hours with both Gas Turbines running full bore (wide open).
Who cares what the DISTANCE is ? TIME is the killer that no one can argue with, except for about 20 minutes plus or minus.
Ahead Flank, each MT-30 gas turbine drinks 16,000 lbs of fuel per hour ( and that means 32,000 lbs per hour for both gas turbines).
Assumption: round the quantity of gas turbine fuel to just over 50,000 gallons ( I think it was 52,000 roughly). Depends upon which tour guide you got while touring LCS-1.
I guess the LCS-1 design is OK. I can't imagine water ski-ing for more than 11.7 hours in a row. So, permission granted to NAVSEA to go right ahead with this existing LCS-1 design and crank out 55 of them. Captain's really don't mind refuelling twice a day. Besides, the MT-30 will need replacing every year or so anyway. PMS-500 also selected the MT-30 monster for its next "war" ship: DDG-1000. Great idea. The only 2 ship classes on this planet sporting MT-30's are: (drum roll...... ta da) LCS-1 class and DDG-1000 class. Expect great things from this un-tried marine version, new MT-30.
Has the Navy let contracts for many new T-AO refueling ships, yet ?
Just how much aluminum in that hull? Just sayin....
That whole "mission package" thingy, being untested and all, is a bit significant too, beyond the survivability "challenge". PPT aint't real life.
No...British battlecruisers had something better than a 57mm popgun.
...not to mention the lean/cherry-picked manning used on the initial 2 ships. Wondering how 50+ of these ships will do when we run out of the pool of cherry-picked sailors and we start dipping into the other 90% of the Navy. Also, is the plan to have 0-5s command all these ships or just the initial prototypes?
The real questions are whether the ships will have the proper racial. sexual, and gay to straight ratios to effectively fight our enemies?
But the most serious question will be: What is the % of gays in the American society? Could be from 2 to 10%...depending on how much you want to influence the discussion....A topic worthy of the CNO's staff, and many in the other forces to ponder while taking the taxpayer's dime, to make sure justice is had for the formerly downtroden.
My car's mission package is an Igloo Module. :-D
I seem to recall I was just short of about 600K in my lovely SpruCan.....until the lead to comensate for the THawk ABLs topside....still above 550K then
Is that you, Gary!
No, but when have naming conventions every stopped them?
You won't get but two ounces in a 12 oz can anyway.
LCS math.
I dont see why it would need to. How many seahawks can it operate off its deck though. or eventually V-22's.
Remind me how many of those is accually functional.....and fits on the ship.
I think people are too harsh on the LCS project. Im sure functionally they are or will be perfectly serviceable ships. The only real problem is cost. You are paying fillet mignon money for Big Mac quality. Big Macs are still delicious, but I wouldn't pay 20 dollars for one.
Jing,
Problem is - this Big Mac ain't got no beef.
USS Hagfish.
I'll let you do the command slate.
A former CNO, ADM Jeremy Boorda, engged in an act which brought discredit upon himself and the Naval service. His sense of honor, and love of the Navy apparently convinced him that the only act of contrition and correction to improve the situation would be to take his own life. And, sadly, he did so.
There are a number of senior officers who have brought far greater discredit upon themselves and the Navy by conceiving, gestating and birthing the LCS, thereby dooming future commanders and crews to go into harms way very ill prepared.
Had they any self respect or love of the service, they may well ponder ADM Boorda's actions, and consider if there is any way they could unscrew this mess they have created.
And, as a taxpayer, I believe the taxpayers are being screwed royally and our country endangered as badly as if they decided not to build these ships at all and built nothing in their place. They are that useless, as well as a near total waste of money at a time when we are in desperate need of ships that can fight and win, or at least fight to a draw.
ADM Roughead will long be remembered, and cursed, for the legacy (and curse) of the LCS.
Speaking of mission: This is an "eveery other Saturday." Muster will be taken...
LCS delenda est
Forget about them V-22s...
Ain't gonna happen
And H-60s are about to be the next high demand low density asset.
<span>WHERE'S THE BEEF?! :-P </span>
I got the perfect CO for this ship, but we'd have to bring her out of forced retirement and clear her record :)
Why give a pass to a system (and leadership failure), that will get a lot of people killed?
<span>What to do with LCS ??????</span>
Sell them to a Chinese investment firm that will use them to franchise casinos all over Asia.
Are we still talking about the ship? Sounds like my dream date. :-P
Both concepts got hobbled by the goofy Need for Speed.
It always seems to make otherwise smart people think with their "little heads".
I'll say it unti I am blue in the face....
The only justice will be if one of them is the USS Obama :-P
Reminds me of the joke about the USS Carter and the USS Reagan ("...typical, the Carter will sit there invisible, doing nothing while the Reagan speeds by and takes care of business!").
Coming back to like and LOL at this one a second time.
They make for AWESOME youtube shorts!
<span>My car's mission package is an Igloo Module</span>
I call shotgun!
Uh-huh...
Where does all the high power intellectual capital in weapons systems acquisition reside these days?
And you are wrong anyway.
If you remember, the USN chose between the offered designs.
Motion made for that to become the ship's official motto. It would look lovely on a fancy shield. We could do colorful flames and a crest of water over the topdeck.
I'd go with "We intend to stay out of harm's way". It would probably sound sufficiently martial in Latin, but we'd know the real meaning.
Sid,
Your link was the very first Salamander post I read. I remember sitting back and thinking when will it be one of our Admirals talking about "something wrong with our bloody ships today"...
Make sure it covers all colors of The Rainbow.
How do you say "RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!" in Latin?
"discurri festina"
Short, sweet, fits on a ship's crest design.
You're saying ADM Roughead should kill himself? You need to evaluate what you expect from people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0
here it is!
I bet that ruined their whole day, Sid! So speed means... getting there firstest with the leastest now?
Adding... somewhere Nathan Bedford Forrest is spinning in his grave.
during "NAM" some of the boys on 1052's did some basic research and found that you could waterski at about 14 knots if you stepped off a lowered accomodation ladder carefully.
c
is it possible to VERTREP fuel onto that thing fast enough to sustain flank speed????
C
Then whaddya think about Freedom's butt cheeks? 8-)
What do I think?
A Marine that speaks Latin? Who knew? :)
Nimium eruditionis habet.
"We came, we saw, we got the hell out"
At least Jackie Fisher had a reason - with the fire control systems that he understood, speed meant no one could hit you...
Of course, he did not understand the fire control systems that even then the RN were developing - these meant that the rate of change of range became relatively predictable (my inner Norman Friedman nerd-fan is in full-force!) and so speed lost most of its protection.
I still can't figure out the reason/excuse that anyone in today's world has for emphasizing 50 knots over, say, 35...
Good Lord, why can't we just go dig up the drawings form the Fletcher or Gearing classes and modify them to take modern systems? At least then we would know that they could take a crapload of abuse and still fight...
"vendi, vidi, diviti"
We came, we saw, we avoided."
A Marine that speaks Latin? Where?
Wow you entirely misunderstood the point of that didnt you.
3 inch is a popgun. 57 mm is a pea shooter. Terminology is important. There are ATF's left over from WWII out there that out range LCS 's and have a greater throw weight.
Buy a 48 crayon box and name one after each color. That way you won't insult any person, place or thing by painting their name on an LCS transom. Except a bunch of crayons.
Igloo modules? All are functional, some smell of fish but you can fit a LOT of them. MIW or ASW modules are less functional and may hose up the stability.
imagine a company of marines, one platoon armed with rifles (marksmanship package) , one with grenades (explosives package) and onee with bayonnets (melee package)
That will be high adventure when the platoon armed with bayonets gets the ambush mission, and the one with the grenades gets overwatch, and the one with the long rifles is tasked to clear a building.
Just like the LCS!!
<p><span><span>Sal, I posted comments to Info Dissem and USNI that support your views. LCS is an important story for 2010. It is the cover story for the Proceedings JAN 2011 issue for that reason. While I am more pessimistic than Galrahn is about its prospects, the story does serve to highlight the dramatic need to rethink Navy strategy and force structure, in that order. If the SWOs are the ones asking, "How do we use these things again?" and claiming, "It cannot survive in the littorals," that is a sign we are in trouble. The concept for operations should have been cemented years before the first hull hit the water, not after. The hulls may be cheap, but as the GAO related, the hull without any appreciable capability addition to the fleet makes it a really cool looking, fast gas burner. Great for photo ops; poor for COCOM and fleet requirements. There are many dirty little secrets about the LCS still to come out that will keep it a top story in 2011--and these will surround everything except the hull. Keep it coming, john</span></span></p>
Thats the bad part. I bet you the Hukk is no less th 650 mil a peice. That is not cheap.
I have yet to find a single really good thing about the LCS program.........not one.
wtf why does it say Hukk instead oF LCS...wth.... :(
Just as you all ripped DDG 1000 design to shreads, no wonder you all are doing the same with LCS. Not saying it's perfect, however, what else does the Navy have in the stovepipe for ship new construction? The good old DDG 51 class is just that; good and old. Flight III may or may not be built. Rumblings are that DDG 51 Flight III cost may exceed DDG 1000. Wouldn't that be a laugh seeing as everyone from CNO on down to SR Timmy screams about DDG 1000 being too expensive. And there's only so much real estate on a DDG 51 ship and last I looked they're pretty well packed up solid with BMD gear and what not with power and cooling capability at it's limits. So now the combatant commanders have an opportunity to get some numbers out there with LCS. Sure they aren't going to fight a blue water engagement with the soviet navy however what LCS can do is be on station, patrolling a sector and conducting various operations from anti-piracy to MIO. Face it peoples, the rapid decomm of Sprucans and now decomm OHP has left us short on numbers and what we do have is being run into the ground. I'm sure back in the day no one was happy with the high-low mix of DE/FFs and CGs however it got the job done. I've served on crappy little DE/FF 1052 class and DDG 51 class. Both have strong and weak points but overall they put ships at sea in the hands of combatant commanders who need the numbers to get the mission done. LCS certainly isn't perfect but it's all we have for now. Given operational time and technical maturity, LCS will likely prove to be an effective Littoral Combat Ship to operate in it's intended environment; the littorals. If you all can get past the mindset that LCS should be able to do what a DDG 51 does at $220 mil a copy, then reality may set in along with acceptance for LCS; a Littoral Combat Ship...period.
So...
ZSME.
The very misnamed Littoral COMBAT Ship...which can't even meet the survivability standard for "the least severe environment anticipated"...
Is yet expected to operate in the battlespace where EVERY case of battle damage to ships has occurred for over sixty years.
Yeah.
that makes sense.
Lets build more of 'em!!!
ZSME,
The old steel pot helmet had its good and bad points. So does kevlar. But don't issue me a helmet design made of eggshells that won't stop a falling acorn and then dismiss my objections because other designs weren't perfect.
LCS cannot effectively kill, and cannot effectively survive in a littoral combat situation. So do we drop "LC" from the designation, and just call it "Ship"?
The offer still stands. Give me a realistic set of resources and a believable scenario and I will Red Team it. And tear the LCS to shreds every time.
Give me a realistic set of resources and a believable scenario and I will Red Team it. And tear the LCS to shreds every time.
Heck, let me hook up with some of my old Bama Breeze buddies...give us some stimulus money, and with what we don't drink and pee away...we could whip their butt less than an hour south of the sea buoy...
we could whip their butt <span>less than an hour south of the sea buoy...</span>
...we could whip their butt <span>less than an hour south of the sea buoy...</span>
There are some real LCSes out there. What will happen when a Least Capable Ship meets up with an LCS?
...we could whip their butt <span>less than an hour south of the sea buoy...</span>
I'm sure back in the day no one was happy with the high-low mix of DE/FFs and CGs however it got the job done.
You are very right he DEs were criticized.
However, they came to the fleet with a set of capabilities already in place.
In the case of the Knox's, they were capable of ASW, at least limited ASuW, and NGFS once the commissioning pennant was raised.
Now exactly WHEN will either LCS design be able to hunt a sub, conduct meaningful ASuW, or NSFS?
So now the combatant commanders have an opportunity to get some numbers out there with LCS.
Numbers.
In 1945 we had numbers ZSME.
Nimitz could afford to take some heavy losses because, he had, "more ships and planes than the enemy has bullets."
2020?
I'm bettin' any mention of "numbers' will be -like the Brits in the Falklands- with lament on what can't be.
A commander won't be able to afford too many scenes like this.
Hey sid!
Stealin' my thunder????
You be gettin' yo props, yo.
Oh yeah...
Combatant Commanders?
Now, according to some, the LC(?)S is not a "warship", even though it may still be called a "surface combatant". (no contradictions there)
So...exactly what good will it do them?
John,
Thanks for weighing in. I also recommend that everyone read your latest in the JAN 2011 Proceedings. In the intro to today's episode of Midrats - I pimp it again
Very well done with the article.
The Combatant Commanders should not be worrying about what to do with the LCS--They should be worrying about how to MCM, ASW and ASUW. OOPs I forgot, those capabilities are not the metrics we are using...
You're the erudite one URR...Good article!
Excellent article CDR. Patch
If you all can get past the mindset that LCS should be able to do what a DDG 51 does at $220 mil a copy
Except for the fanciful .ppt artists' renderings the primes have commissioned...in the effort to sell foreign navies DDG-51 capabilities on LCS hulls...nothing I've read hear suggests any such thing.
But...at 220 mil a copy...(which I believe about as much as I believe Fort Worth is a "mid-sized" city, as it shows the truth is nowhere to be found in this program)...just exactly what capabilities have our tax dollars bought ZSME?
Methinks you should reread what James wrote.
Ahhh, just I suspected would happen. Give it half a day and blah-blah-blah-blah-the-LCS-is-the-worst-piece-of-blank-ever-built...give it a rest. You've got nothing else going in new warship design. LPD-17 = no good....DDG-1000 = no good...LCS-1 and 2 = no good...blah-blah-blah. A wise old Navy Captain once said to me "Don't come to me with problems. I want solutions." So no one is happy with any of the new ship designs under construction today. Short of building nuclear powered BB-61 class with AGS and PVLS, what is it that will meet the needs of the Navy?
You forgot the new LHA-6 class, too.
Wow.... well.... let's wait for a few more months,
and, then USS AMERICA LHA-6 will be up for discussion by lucid taxpayers.
Even though, LHA-6 is maybe one fourth the price of CVN-78, it will soon need additional funding and more time.
See a pattern here ? NAVSEA hasn't been able to come up with one brand new (non-MSC) class of ship ever since it started forcing 100,000 civilian and military "acquisition" employees to waste maybe, on average, one quarter of all their work time for a period of several years studying absolutely USELESS courses !! Of no value whatsoever to shipbuilders. Only to the uncountable masses and their contractors who are hangers on in the wasteland around WASHINGTON DC. Kill the many millions of dollars and uncountable hours wasted on so-called ACQUISITON TRAINING, which began back around 2001. No decent ship building has occurred since that time. Just thinking ....
Mr ZSME:
Solution: Build Nansens under license. Or one of several Euro-frigates.
De-certify shipyards who screw up huge from competing for Navy contracts. Start in the Gulf of Mexico.
Ask Ed Giambastiani to come out of retirement and clean house at NavSea. Basis for selection - raw IQ, technical savvy, and leadership ability. Then leave him there for 8 years or until the 1110 mafia can come up with somebody up to the job. I'm sure there's a LCDR somewhere who can grow into it. Maybe even a CDR, who knows.
What it really comes down to is money. It would be great if we could all own a Maserati Quattroporte Sport GT S with a 440HP engine. However most of us regular folks would be lucky to be able to afford a new Ford or Chevy. In the case of the Navy, they want that fancy Maserati but at the cost of an entry level Chevy. So the Navy writes requirements for a Maserati expecting a price tag for that entry level Chevy but when they get the bill all hell breaks loose. To further compound the problem, the nay-sayers complain about every nit in the design of the Maserati saying "It should be 4WD and be able to tow 20K lbs" and "It should get 40MPG" but their expectations can never be met. Comparitively a Chevy Tahoe Hybrid with 4WD can't tow 20K lbs or get 40MPG and certainly will never approach the performance and handling of a Maserati Quattroporte Sport GT S. You can't have your cake and eat it to. So the reality is everything is a trade off between cost and capability. The Navy could have built a more survivable-armored-up LCS however it would be significantly slower, deeper draft, higher fuel consumption and even less room onboard for the crew and mission modules. The Navy could have also done the same thing with the PT boats of WWII. Recall they were made of wood and could not withstand battle damage beyond small arms. They could have switched to steel hulls and armored them. Would they have been more effective? I think the history of the PT boats speak for themselves. They were expendable. In the case of LCS, seems you all are expecting battleship (BB) protection and performance out of a PT boat hull. Sorry, but you just can't there from here.
<span>What it really comes down to is money. It would be great if we could all own a Maserati Quattroporte Sport GT S with a 440HP engine. However most of us regular folks would be lucky to be able to afford a new Ford or Chevy. In the case of the Navy, they want that fancy Maserati but at the cost of an entry level Chevy. So the Navy writes requirements for a Maserati expecting a price tag for that entry level Chevy but when they get the bill all hell breaks loose. To further compound the problem, the nay-sayers complain about every nit in the design of the Maserati saying "It should be 4WD and be able to tow 20K lbs" and "It should get 40MPG" but their expectations can never be met. Comparitively a Chevy Tahoe Hybrid with 4WD can't tow 20K lbs or get 40MPG and certainly will never approach the performance and handling of a Maserati Quattroporte Sport GT S. You can't have your cake and eat it to. So the reality is everything is a trade off between cost and capability. The Navy could have built a more survivable-armored-up LCS however it would be significantly slower, deeper draft, higher fuel consumption and even less room onboard for the crew and mission modules. The Navy could have also done the same thing with the PT boats of WWII. Recall they were made of wood and could not withstand battle damage beyond small arms. They could have switched to steel hulls and armored them. Would they have been more effective? I think the history of the PT boats speak for themselves. They were expendable. In the case of LCS, seems you all are expecting battleship (BB) protection and performance out of a PT boat hull. Sorry, but you just can't get there from here.</span>
"De-certify shipyards who screw up huge from competing for Navy contracts."
Not a realistic solution. The yards build what the Navy tells them to build. The Navy reviews and approves the designs (PDR/CDR). The problem continues to be unrealistic pricing expectations by the Navy. They wanted a $220M a copy LCS however the requirements (specs) drive the cost to be twice that amount or more. You can spec a Maserati but don't be surprised with the bill exceeds an entry level Chevy.
PT boats would be better then the LCS. If sunk, you lose less money, and you could dump the modules and save a bucketfull. Of course the PT won't have a helo deck, but convert some small tankers to jeep carriers and have the helos do the modules work.
PS: 400 million plus at the discount rack is NOT expendable, and you can get a 57 mm and 2 30mm on a PT
IF it were as simple as that, I would agree with you. But at that level of funding and for defense corporations desperate for the slice of dollars there is one hell of a lot of pressure put on NAVSEA to do things the corporations want. Think I lie? I do a lot of parts lists breakdowns so we can accomplish work packages. I figure out how much we need based on the specification and my inspection and then send it to Purchasing. You simply would not believe how many times I run across fiddly little bits that have no freakin' drawing or NSN number for them, just a line in the bill of materials that says, "Acme Corp, #XXXXXXXXXX" When you tell NAVSEA that you can't get the damn thing in time, they don't care. See, the ugly truth is that theres all sorts of little shops that make fiddly bits, owned by people who contribute to their local congress person who has a buddy on the HASC or some other committe. The fiddly bit gets put into a drawing leaving whatever shipyard has to use it scrambling to get the damn thing and then paying through the nose for it.
This is fact, not conjecture. I've seen it too many times. Dealing with one now. Ain't got a clue how to get something here in a month when they tell me two months. Can't even build one ourselves (which we could do, given a drawing). Can't get their drawing, it's proprietary.
ZSME, get down out of the clouds and think about the sailors and Chiefs and officers who will sail into harms way on these ships. Ask yourself if you were in command would you send your ship and crew to a hostile shore knowing there was a damn good chance of death or imprisonment.
Unfortunately you are setting up a total strawman and skipping over several decades of experience in designing and building light warships.
Why it that this aluminum monstrosity displaces roughly the same as a Fletcher and yet has nothing near the range or capability? Hell, the Flower class outguns and outranges it on roughly one-third the displacement...
My point is not that we should go a rebuild a WWII destroyer (let alone the British escorts), but that we should take the lessons that were learned the hard way and build on them. Instead we took bathwater, baby, tub, and the entire f*%$ing floor and threw it all out the window. Now we have a five gallon bucket and a garden hose and we're calling it "transformational".
ZSME,
I'll be honest i've never been in the navy. Hell i havent seen the ocean sense i was 6 and got a bad rash from sand in my crotch-to much info?. And im only 26. I just find stuff like this and am currently getting my fata$$ into shape to join either the Navy or marines. So there is that.
That said what i have done is listened and read. I will continue doing such for my entire life. But the people i've talked to who Build ships. Go to sea and sail, man, and if called upon fight in ships all have agree'ed on one thing. This ship is a disaster.
Ment to operate close to shore it has armor so thin that a tangle with anything more powerful than a guy with a small machinegun is very dangerous. That doesn't include artillery fire which could shread it. ALL the things that could sink it are close to shore...were its supposed to operate.
It could get its but kicked by the new Iranian Destroyer that is in all acuality a patrol boat...that carries 3 times the firepower.
I wont even get into the problems with the moduals-like how they may need to include more space for crew. Seems they just dont have enough when you put on some weapons systems.
I will agree with you on one thing. The biggest cause of this is the Navies demands on this ship. They want a F-35 of the seas. Which we can see how well thats going. The F-35 will however be able to do its job OK if not really up to snuff. However it will do this at such a cost the F-22 would have been a better buy.
Like the F-35 to much stuff in one ship. To much new tech in one ship and they want it all at cost. 225 mil my butt more like 400-600 mil.
Anyways i ramble.
Bottom line is that those who know naval warfare have loudly said Disaster. And i can believe it.
Solution? Well i see a problem when the navy cant find one first of all. Many i've met said a new frigate class. Dont ask it to move at 55+ knots either. Make the hull design flexable enough that with only minor alterations are nessesary for the different jobs required. Have each subclass share as much common machinery etc with the others. But each sub class of the design is specialized at its job.
Im sure others have their own idea's. Thats great. Point is If I can tell the LCS is a death trap then there is a problem. And if i can see it so can the men/women who serve aboard them and so can our enemies.
James said "Bottom line is that those who know naval warfare have loudly said Disaster. And i can believe it."
Really? CNO is a capable and competent naval warrior with extensive shipboard command experience and he has not "...loudly said Disaster..." concerning LCS.
only half wrong. differentiate between the builder (shipyard), and the builder (Lockheed). all the yard did was build to Lockheed and Gibbs & Cox's design.
Well he hasn't. Thats nice. Just dozens of sailors both former and present in US and foreign navies have said it is.
I simply fail to see what it is good for.....it cannot do its job.
And that is when it wont be down for maintanence or switching out moduals it has to go to dock for, or refueling.....
"<span>CNO is a capable and competent naval warrior"</span>
Whose number one priority is Diversity? Warrior? He is a bald-faced politician whose questionable performance and personal ambition is partially responsible for the shipbuilding mess we are in.
Dude,
Click the LCS tag and go back a few years --- we have offered plenty of solutions. NANSEN/ABSALON/VISBY ... etc.
Oh, and yes - LCS, DDG-1000, and LPD-17 are all failed programs that come from the same poorly informed requirements of the "transformational" cult.
Heck - even the CNO is having second thoughts with his statement last year that he will promote "the evolutionary vs. the revolutionary" in the future.
You want to know where that argument started? Right here at CDRSalamander years ago. Ask Sid, Byron, or any of the other regulars.
Please continue to come by and add to the discussion - I like your comments. I would just recommned that you click the tags and do so research on this site over the 6+ years it has been going on. Heck - you might even find something you like. If not, that's OK - no one here is perfect. Neither are you - that is what makes this fun.
I will tell you this: You have far too much skin in the game to make an objective argument. I'm a simple shipfitter and professionally speaking this is no skin off my nose. As someone who has been around the Navy for decades and loves it as his own, I object strongly to both projects. Further, there are many of your brothers in arms, sailors all, who also object to this project. We all have sound reasons why. Your answers are backed by empheral arguments which we cannot refute, yet you insist that we take your word for it.
My shipfitters eye has been looking at one of these "fine ships" for over two weeks now. LCS-2 has been tied to the pier and is broke (yes, I had that confirmed today) LCS-1 is in San Diego..broke...again. Teething pains? Or overly expensive turbines that could have been the tried and true LM-2500? You tell me.
Post a Comment