Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment…
U.S. Naval Institute ^ | January, 2011 | USNI

Posted on 01/09/2011 7:49:09 AM PST by Jeff Chandler

LCS was designated by the Navy as a Level I survivability combatant ship, but neither design is expected to achieve the degree of shock hardening as required by the CDD [Capabilities Development Document]. Shock hardening (ability to sustain a level of operations following an underwater explosive attack) is required for all mission critical systems, as required by a Level 1 survivability requirement. Only a few selected subsystems will be shock hardened, supporting only mobility to evacuate a threat area following a design-level shock event. Accordingly, the full, traditional rigor of Navy-mandated ship shock trials is not achievable, due to the damage that would be sustained by the ship and its many non-shock-hardened subsystems.

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.usni.org ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cpmbat; lcs; littoral; warship



1 posted on 01/09/2011 7:49:13 AM PST by Jeff Chandler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
These aren't capitol ships. There is a limit to how much damage a smaller vessel can sustain. But soon I'm sure, all the armchair Generals and Admirals will be along to express their outrage. Much like they did when they discovered that a Humvee couldn't withstand antitank mines.
2 posted on 01/09/2011 7:59:20 AM PST by SunTzuWu (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. - Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
I don't know anything about the LCS. It is, however, pretty common knowledge that the acquisition process is broken for military contracts. As costs rise, and as schedules slip, it is not uncommon for capabilities to be reduced. You end up with a product which is very expensive and very late, and which doesn't do what you wanted it to do.

Many parts of the federal budget need cutting much more than Defense, but if DoD did a better job of spending their dollars, it would be easier to avoid cuts. As it is, I expect Dept of Education and Dept of Energy to retain most of their dollars, and DoD to lose a fair chunk. It shouldn't be that way, but this is, in part, self-inflicted.

3 posted on 01/09/2011 8:10:15 AM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY Attitude

ping for later


4 posted on 01/09/2011 8:13:46 AM PST by NY Attitude (Make love not war but be prepared for either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu

HOw much does one of these cost as opposed to say...retaining the Wisconsin or Missouri? I thought the battleships were built like....battleships and could sustain a lot of damage and still hurl ordnance.


5 posted on 01/09/2011 8:17:09 AM PST by MSF BU (YR'S Please Support our troops: JOIN THEM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu

“These aren’t capitol ships. There is a limit to how much damage a smaller vessel can sustain.”

The Army’s recently killed Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicle had similar problems. They had no armor and vertical sides so they could be flown into combat. When somebody asked where the armor was, they were told (by prime contractor Boeing) that the Army would have total control of ground and air and that there would be nothing to threaten these vehicles. That was before IED’s. But, still, even if you do away with the concept of IED’s, the large-scale use of expensive, vulnerable vehicles as the only vehicle in the field would necessarily lead to anti-vehicle weapons costing a fraction as much. As it turned out, IED’s and people willing to sacrifice themselves have changed the world all by themselves. IED’s and the lack of what you could call a “front line” made these vehicles expensive death traps.

Incidentally, Obama’s administration has cancelled all of the spare parts contracts (with my company, at least) for the Army’s vehicles. The Tank and Automotive Command told us that they have scrapped half the Army’s fleets to supply those spares. In two years, according to my company’s Logistics guys, there won’t be many working combat vehicles. Starting January 1st, my company is laying off between 70 and 80% of its employees.


6 posted on 01/09/2011 8:25:05 AM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu

“Much like they did when they discovered that a Humvee couldn’t withstand antitank mines.”

Or that the Bradley could not withstand a main gun round from a tank.


7 posted on 01/09/2011 8:29:09 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu
As an armchair Admiral (and former active duty officer), I am confused on this ship's mission. If it's cheap and disposable, what is it supposed to do that a Zodiac can't do? If it's supposed to be a combat ship, what prevents us from giving it the survivability of a real ship. My reading of this (I have enough of a NAVSEA background to think that I know what I'm talking about) is that Obama doesn't particularly care about dead sailors, so he won't pay to make this ship a proper warship. If you know better, then I'm all ears.

They're both supposed to fight in the littoral, and apparently neither is survivable in combat operations. For that $500M price tag, will the LCS crew at least be provided with a rubber patch kit and a scoop for bailing?

Even John Paul Jones, when he said, "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way," was thinking of ships that could stand and fight, as well as run to carry the fight to the enemy, not just a ship that could run away but that couldn't take a hit.

8 posted on 01/09/2011 8:33:41 AM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu

The purpose of a ship is to lay alongside another ship and to sink it. You are in deep kimchi if you can’t do that. One day you have a Navy, the next it is on the bottom of the ocean.


9 posted on 01/09/2011 8:44:07 AM PST by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

This is not exactly Obama’s fault. Both LCS versions are derived from commercial designs which have been criticised as having lower safety standards than usual naval vessels.

Modifying it into a ‘proper’ warship could likely jack up its costs. Or you can cancel the project or redesign it.


10 posted on 01/09/2011 8:45:14 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

We will spill our children’s blood because we sent them into harm’s way without proper equipment (and probably proper leadership). May the Lord have mercy on us.


11 posted on 01/09/2011 8:48:41 AM PST by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
Actually, the American LCS is pictured below. The photo you featured is the ship being built by the Chinese from plans and specs hand-carried by Obozo on his last trip over there.

Photobucket

Armed with a single MA-2 .50 caliber Browning, this much feared naval vessel carries up to 30 rounds of aluminum piercing ammunition. It is the first in an entirely new naval architecture class -- technically, “clitoral” (not to be confused with “littoral”) -- being pushed on the Pentagon by the defense minded wussies in the Obama Administration as a cost-saving measure. If you look closely, you can see the heavy-duty seat restraint which prevents the pilot/gunner – Kamakazi Kowalski – from leaping from the vessel prior to engaging the enemy. The 12 V trolling motor – which lacks a reverse function -- propels this sophisticated craft forward at a top speed of 4 knots. Reverse travel – at approximately 35 knots -- is achieved by firing the Browning.

The no-bid contract to build 200 of these fearsome warships has been awarded to Obama-Soros-Emanuel Shipbuilding and Stormdoor Manufacturing (formerly General Dynamics) and will be administered by trusted Obama associate and former Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel who commented that, at $12 million each, they are a bargain. They will be constructed exclusively at the company’s facility in Kenya with major subcomponent production (rivets and miscellaneous fasteners) at the company’s Harlem and Skokie plants. Delivery is expected to begin in 2024 (or as soon as the subcontractors’ funds are safely in the contractor's Swiss account).

12 posted on 01/09/2011 8:48:48 AM PST by Dick Bachert (2012 CAN'T COME SOON ENOUGH FOR ME. HOW ABOUT YOU?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Well, I do not have a NAVSEA background, but I do have an AT SEA background. Eight+ years of Sea Time on combatants, all in Combat Systems which included a stint as Aft GLO and 25mm Chaingunner. The littoral environment is, as you surely know, vastly different than where the fleet operates. Any vessel that operates in the littoral environment needs to be light, fast and maneuverable. The trade off to that is protection. Yes, you can add composites that will be more shock resistant, but it all comes at a cost ($’s). Cheaper armor is heavier, which negates the qualities needed in shallow water. Having operated with large fleet vessels and in the littoral environment with Navy EOD, I believe there is a need for a littoral combat vessel. Is this the best vessel for that? I don’t know, but to say that a Zodiac can do the same job cheaper is, I believe, a disservice to the conversation.
Do you have experience operating in the littoral environment and with the threats presented in that environment? Do you posit that there is no need for such a vessel?


13 posted on 01/09/2011 8:51:51 AM PST by ExpatGator (I hate Illinois Nazis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
Incidentally, Obama’s administration has cancelled all of the spare parts contracts (with my company, at least) for the Army’s vehicles. The Tank and Automotive Command told us that they have scrapped half the Army’s fleets to supply those spares. In two years, according to my company’s Logistics guys, there won’t be many working combat vehicles. Starting January 1st, my company is laying off between 70 and 80% of its employees.

That's disturbing. Spare parts are just as, if not more, important than procuring new systems. Our next President is going to have to rebuild the military just as Reagan did.

14 posted on 01/09/2011 8:55:35 AM PST by SunTzuWu (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. - Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
I find nothing in your post to disagree with.
15 posted on 01/09/2011 8:58:32 AM PST by SunTzuWu (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. - Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu

Capital ships.


16 posted on 01/09/2011 9:02:08 AM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
Thanks. I didn't catch that the first time around. Lazy spelling irritates the hell out of me. Don't even get me started on the uses of your/you're, then/than, saw/seen, etc...
17 posted on 01/09/2011 9:11:40 AM PST by SunTzuWu (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. - Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu

I was pissed at the very existence of the HUMVEE. Heavy, thirsty and unprotected.

Also,the supposed most mobile mechanized military didn’t have one, zero, MRAP. Not even experimentally. Like as if mines didn’t chew up grunts in VN, and in every turd world conflict.

I would of gone even cheaper and more disposable with the n coastal ships( although it is nice the Navy noticed the majority of people live a near water, and ports and politics and stuff ) What are we saving all those Burke( ? ) Destroyers for, scrap?

It’s good to see them getting a touch more political and away from Blue Water sub hunting.

/bathtubadmiral off


18 posted on 01/09/2011 9:37:14 AM PST by Leisler (They always lie, and have for so much and for so long, that they no longer know what about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Less firepower than a PT Boat, but very whizzy. It’s main mission is to intimdate people in motor launches, ensure the safety of procurement officers and maintain the steady employment of contractors.

Literally, if this thing ran into a little WWII era destroyer escort, it would be doomed, with no way to fight back. (except of course, it could run away) Sounds like a Joke until you look at what most foreign navies drive around in.

It’s not even safe in the Carribean.


19 posted on 01/09/2011 10:05:27 AM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

self ping


20 posted on 01/09/2011 10:09:48 AM PST by shove_it (old Old Guardsman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
My reading of this (I have enough of a NAVSEA background to think that I know what I'm talking about) is that Obama doesn't particularly care about dead sailors, so he won't pay to make this ship a proper warship

LCS's problems have nothing to do with Obama.

The villian is former CNO Vern Clark, who basically designed the ship in one evening with no analysis; hence the worthless, silly top speed, etc.

21 posted on 01/09/2011 10:09:59 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ExpatGator

The LCS is not particularly light and it’s considerably larger than your average OPV or corvette. Not to forget, far more expensive.


22 posted on 01/09/2011 10:10:19 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I understand and therefore did not defend that particular platform. However, I believe the need/mission remains unfulfilled.


23 posted on 01/09/2011 10:14:01 AM PST by ExpatGator (I hate Illinois Nazis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ExpatGator

Agreed, but a lot of people think that part of the problem with the LCS stems from the lack of clarity on the precise nature of the littoral mission(s) that the USN envisages.


24 posted on 01/09/2011 10:35:34 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu
"These aren't capitol ships"

At 3ktons you are exactly correct.

However, to use an aluminum hull is asking for trouble. They'll still set off a mine but would be broken in half by one. To top it off they are very lightly armed.

I would rather see us buying 2,500 ton frigates with steel hulls, torpedoes, Harpoon missiles and 35kt speeds.

25 posted on 01/09/2011 10:51:28 AM PST by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

Actually, the American LCS is pictured below. The photo you featured is the ship being built by the Chinese from plans and specs hand-carried by Obozo on his last trip over there.

Armed with a single MA-2 .50 caliber Browning, this much feared naval vessel carries up to 30 rounds of aluminum piercing ammunition. It is the first in an entirely new naval architecture class — technically, “clitoral” (not to be confused with “littoral”) — being pushed on the Pentagon by the defense minded wussies in the Obama Administration as a cost-saving measure. If you look closely, you can see the heavy-duty seat restraint which prevents the pilot/gunner – Kamakazi Kowalski – from leaping from the vessel prior to engaging the enemy. The 12 V trolling motor – which lacks a reverse function — propels this sophisticated craft forward at a top speed of 4 knots. Reverse travel – at approximately 35 knots — is achieved by firing the Browning.

The no-bid contract to build 200 of these fearsome warships has been awarded to Obama-Soros-Emanuel Shipbuilding and Stormdoor Manufacturing (formerly General Dynamics) and will be administered by trusted Obama associate and former Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel who commented that, at $12 million each, they are a bargain. They will be constructed exclusively at the company’s facility in Kenya with major subcomponent production (rivets and miscellaneous fasteners) at the company’s Harlem and Skokie plants. Delivery is expected to begin in 2024 (or as soon as the subcontractors’ funds are safely in the contractor’s Swiss account).


If FR has a post of the month — I nominate this one. LOL


26 posted on 01/09/2011 10:57:13 AM PST by patriot preacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

Actually, the American LCS is pictured below. The photo you featured is the ship being built by the Chinese from plans and specs hand-carried by Obozo on his last trip over there.

Armed with a single MA-2 .50 caliber Browning, this much feared naval vessel carries up to 30 rounds of aluminum piercing ammunition. It is the first in an entirely new naval architecture class — technically, “clitoral” (not to be confused with “littoral”) — being pushed on the Pentagon by the defense minded wussies in the Obama Administration as a cost-saving measure. If you look closely, you can see the heavy-duty seat restraint which prevents the pilot/gunner – Kamakazi Kowalski – from leaping from the vessel prior to engaging the enemy. The 12 V trolling motor – which lacks a reverse function — propels this sophisticated craft forward at a top speed of 4 knots. Reverse travel – at approximately 35 knots — is achieved by firing the Browning.

The no-bid contract to build 200 of these fearsome warships has been awarded to Obama-Soros-Emanuel Shipbuilding and Stormdoor Manufacturing (formerly General Dynamics) and will be administered by trusted Obama associate and former Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel who commented that, at $12 million each, they are a bargain. They will be constructed exclusively at the company’s facility in Kenya with major subcomponent production (rivets and miscellaneous fasteners) at the company’s Harlem and Skokie plants. Delivery is expected to begin in 2024 (or as soon as the subcontractors’ funds are safely in the contractor’s Swiss account).


If FR has a post of the month — I nominate this one. LOL


27 posted on 01/09/2011 10:57:49 AM PST by patriot preacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: patriot preacher

Thank you for the kind words.
Be safe.


28 posted on 01/09/2011 12:30:40 PM PST by Dick Bachert (2012 CAN'T COME SOON ENOUGH FOR ME. HOW ABOUT YOU?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The Pentagon part of the USN apparently overestimates what is necessary. Small, say 110-130’ advanced fiber boats with the 30mm Bushmasters, Harpoons and Stingers, with assorted small arms (Mk19, M2) would fill the bill very well and would be cheap. All the technology exists. Hulls exist already manufactured by civilian companies. The Admirals definitely need to get out of bed with the contractors and fill the void with an affordable vessel.


29 posted on 01/09/2011 2:01:03 PM PST by ExpatGator (I hate Illinois Nazis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

If that last is true, you guys need to get that in front of Congress post haste. Just damn!


30 posted on 01/09/2011 2:04:22 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MSF BU

I believe fast BBs are exactly what we need in the ME.

Build the Kentucky and the Montana.


31 posted on 01/09/2011 2:06:39 PM PST by Jim Noble (Third Bank of the United States: Ever wonder why they didn't call it that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

>>Literally, if this thing ran into a little WWII era destroyer escort, it would be doomed, with no way to fight back.

You seem to be missing the missiles with 40km range and 100+ pound warheads. I daresay it wouldn’t take too many too, perhaps as few as one, to at least get a mission kill on a DE.


32 posted on 01/09/2011 2:14:58 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
"I was pissed at the very existence of the HUMVEE. Heavy, thirsty and unprotected."

LOL....the HMMWV was designed primarily as a replacement for the M151. As a Jeep fan, I have to admit that it does that job admirably, for the most part doing everything the very versatile Jeep did and more. It's precisely because the vehicle was so versatile and capable that bean-counters began to insist on its being used for all sorts of things it was never originally designed for.

If you think there have been a lot of casualties in the WOT because of inadequately armored Hummers, you can multiply the number by a factor of at least two or three had we still been using M151s.

33 posted on 01/09/2011 2:19:37 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

“If that last is true, you guys need to get that in front of Congress post haste. Just damn!”

I’m sure Congress is aware. But, the president can spend the budget pretty much as he pleases. And, as dangerous as that becomes when we have a Clinton or an Obama, I wouldn’t have it any other way because we also have good conservatives and they need the freedom of action. Clinton had literally used up all the bullets and bombs without ordering spares. After Gore lost to Bush 2, Bush 2’s staff called the presidents of all the bullets and bomb companies and told them to go to 24 hour shifts; “we’ll talk price later.” True to his word, he paid off every bill.

The calls from Congress for Secretary Rumsfeld to resign were a result over where he (and the president) spent the budget. Rumsfeld cancelled several wasteful programs; the companies that had them had contributed to many campaigns, I’m sure.

This is not a new game and Congress knows how it’s played. I can assure you that every company president has complained to his Congressman. There is nothing Congress can do about it.


34 posted on 01/09/2011 2:57:36 PM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Because the takers have voted more “safety net” for themselves than the makers have paid for,....

...aren’t we at the mercy of only sustaining military capabilities that the Chinese will finance for us??


35 posted on 01/09/2011 3:07:16 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

I would of kept the jeeps and put the development money and billions spent into MRAPS. I can remember reading about them in the late 70’s in Rhodesia and thinking they were nifty. I guess our Colonel and Generals even post VN never thought they’d have a road mine problem. Even back then the African communists were double and triple stacking tank mines.


36 posted on 01/09/2011 3:28:56 PM PST by Leisler (They always lie, and have for so much and for so long, that they no longer know what about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Hindsight always is 20/20. If you go back to the late 70's, the US was still operating on the Active Defense doctrine which wasn't replaced by the Air Land Battle concept of the 80's. Virtually the whole of the US military was focused on the Fulda Gap scenario and a linear battle in Europe...ergo the Abrams and Bradley which would fight up front, and the HMMWV to supplant the Jeeps in the rear area.

It made sense at the time.

37 posted on 01/09/2011 3:45:43 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ExpatGator

The catch is there is really no one size fits all solution here. The solution you mentioned might not have the endurance that an OPV or a coast guard cutter might have. If all you want to do is fight terrorists, insurgents and pirates, Harpoons are a waste.


38 posted on 01/09/2011 7:10:07 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson