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 ...
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.
ping for later
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 $12 million each, they are a bargain. They will be constructed exclusively at the company’s facility in Kenya with major subcomponent production (rivets and miscellaneous fasteners) at the company’s Harlem and Skokie plants. Delivery is expected to begin in 2024 (or as soon as the subcontractors’ funds are safely in the contractor's Swiss account).
Well, I do not have a NAVSEA background, but I do have an AT SEA background. Eight+ years of Sea Time on combatants, all in Combat Systems which included a stint as Aft GLO and 25mm Chaingunner. The littoral environment is, as you surely know, vastly different than where the fleet operates. Any vessel that operates in the littoral environment needs to be light, fast and maneuverable. The trade off to that is protection. Yes, you can add composites that will be more shock resistant, but it all comes at a cost ($’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?
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.
Capital ships.
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
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.
self ping
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.