Once again, will someone please give the CNO new LCS talking points.
During the hearing, Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, did not address the DOT&E finding directly. Instead, Roughead noted the shallow-water ships “can go where other ships cannot. … It’s going to be a real workhorse for us.”What other ships?
The frigates from 5-inch Friday? HMS Antrim, Ardent, and Argonaut? Going to go into the lion's den like the USS Newport News CA-148, USS Rowan DD-782, USS Providence CLG-6, and USS Robison DDG-12? Closer than a PC? Really? For that price tag?
That shallow at that speed will you be doing a better job at MIW, ASUW, or ASW? No.
Could you insert special forces? Sure - but in a ship the size of a WWII destroyer with no protection? Who are you going to sneak up on exactly? Really.
Please, I've heard that "Boldly go where no ship has gone before" talking point 1,000 times ... but never have a seen or heard an example of any type of mission that another ship can do better for less money .... and without asking for a training time out while they disappear for a week to change out a mission module.
I see Congress needs to be a little more well read.
Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), the committee’s ranking member — later joined by others — said he was increasingly concerned the Pentagon is “wasting billions in development” and “years of effort” on some weapon programs.What? The over budget fetish? The bad manning model? The 3,000-ton ship that can't take a hit? The "4 months and the crew is burned out" deployment model. The erector-set partially mission capable mission modules?
When the Pentagon has set out to develop and field a new combat system “in an expedited way … we’ve saved money” and gotten those platforms to deployed forces faster than following the military’s cumbersome acquisition process, Dicks said.
“And I think LCS is an example of doing it right,” he said.
What exactly has been shown to be "right" about this program to this date?