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

Skip to comments.

(Non-existent) Stealth destroyers, (broken) littoral combat ships headed to Pacific
Stars and Stripes ^ | 7/29/14 | Robson

Posted on 07/29/2014 7:20:54 AM PDT by pabianice

Stealth destroyers, littoral combat ships headed to Pacific, Mabus says

With $3.3 billion Zumwalt, Navy trying for smallest blip on radar

Sometime next year, the USS Zumwalt will begin testing the Tomahawk missiles, GPS-guided munitions and "total ship" computing systems that will make the $3.3 billion vessel the most advanced destroyer in Navy history.

Scope of Navy's LCS program uncertain, despite no clear replacement

The lighter, faster surface fleet of the future may get heavier than Navy leaders have planned, as high-ranking skeptics at the Pentagon try to convince lawmakers that the service is relying too much on a new coastal warfare ship.

Hagel orders cut to LCS plans; reduced operations for carriers

The Navy will not contract for any more than 32 littoral combat ships, 20 less than the Navy planned for, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Wednesday in Washington. Stars and Stripes coverage of the Pacific pivot YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — The Navy will send new stealth destroyers, littoral combat ships and an amphibious ready group to the Pacific, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said Monday, reiterating the U.S. commitment to its military “pivot” to the region.

“The rebalance to the Pacific is real,” Mabus told sailors gathered at Yokosuka’s Fleet Theater for an all-hands call.

(Excerpt) Read more at stripes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: boondoggle; lcs; pos; wasteofmoney
This is bizarre. The DDG-1000 class isn't built yet. The (four hulls) LCS-class doesn't work. And these are what the Navy plans to defend the Pacific with? In what scifi novel?
1 posted on 07/29/2014 7:20:54 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The Navy’s been carrying on about “littoral combat ships” for at least thirty years.

What have we got to show for it?


2 posted on 07/29/2014 7:23:32 AM PDT by Steely Tom (How do you feel about robbing Peter's robot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

In Elmo’s SyFy Navy. I remember Elmo’s Navy in the early 70s. Bell bottoms, long hair and sideburns all at a time when soldiers used Dippity Doo to keep their long hair slicked back to conform. Elmo’s sailors didn’t have to worry about all that.


3 posted on 07/29/2014 7:23:37 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

From what the media says....the ships are undermanned and would only work in wartime if everyone onboard pulled a twenty-four shift....for weeks at a time. They’d all be zombies after five days.


4 posted on 07/29/2014 7:24:18 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Jobs in Democrat precincts and mucho dollars for unions I’d expect,


5 posted on 07/29/2014 7:24:18 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Mabus. A name found prominently in Nostradamus...


6 posted on 07/29/2014 7:24:48 AM PDT by null and void (If Bill Clinton was the first black president, why isn't Barack Obama the first woman president?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

Maybe this is the precedent for the current “Last Ship” series featuring the USS Nathan James.


7 posted on 07/29/2014 7:25:15 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

4 Weeks
30%

Support It Or Lose It

8 posted on 07/29/2014 7:29:22 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

What have we got to show for it?

Littoral nothing?


9 posted on 07/29/2014 7:30:03 AM PDT by al baby (Hi Mom…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: al baby

You’re looking at it the wrong way!

These destroyers are so “stealthy” that no one has EVER seen one!


10 posted on 07/29/2014 7:31:02 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Reminds me of something Rumsfiled said i think it was him mining a harbor is as easy as saying you did in a press release


11 posted on 07/29/2014 7:37:12 AM PDT by al baby (Hi Mom…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Obama: Ships for the navy are not as important as obama phones for the Amish...


12 posted on 07/29/2014 7:43:10 AM PDT by thejokker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I don’t think radar is the big concern for the Navy. This is nothing but lining the pockets of big campaign contributors in Congress.

Many countries have space-based ship tracking capabilities that do not rely on radar, so stealth ships are a waste of taxpayer monies.


13 posted on 07/29/2014 7:45:40 AM PDT by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Ski-Doo up Anacostia Creek. You’ll see plenty.


14 posted on 07/29/2014 7:50:53 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (The GOP is dying. What do we do now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The first DDG-1000 is 90% complete, and should join the fleet on schedule; units two and three are still building at Bath. The capabilities of these vessels are tremendous, but they’re just too darned expensive. Meanwhile, we had existing DDG and cruiser designs that could be updated—and remain mission ready—for years to come.

LCS was a good idea, but poorly executed. Biggest weakness, as I understand it, is a weak anti-air capability. So, if you have an adversary with even a rudimentary anti-ship/cruise missile capability, you’ll still need a cruiser or destroyer to protect the LCS. The idea of building 50 was preposterous, and you can make the case we don’t need the 30 or so that are planned. Meanwhile, we’re going to lay-up almost two dozen cruisers and destroyers so we can can maintain our carrier force (a good idea) while funding the DDG-1000 science project and trying to get something out of the LCS project.


15 posted on 07/29/2014 8:02:27 AM PDT by ExNewsExSpook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Not built? The Zumwalt was launched last October.
You realize these ships are not the ONLY ones the Navy will have in the pacific... right?
And the LCS may have some flaws, even big ones, but that is not the same as “doesn’t work”. Do the engines run? Can it float? Do the weapons function? Then it ‘works’. How effective it is remains to be seen but you can’t argue that it “doesn’t work”


16 posted on 07/29/2014 8:04:31 AM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
I remember Elmo’s Navy in the early 70s.

At least they weren't joined by gays and women.

17 posted on 07/29/2014 8:07:31 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan

Yes. Regrettably, that is a very small consolation, though. :o(


18 posted on 07/29/2014 8:12:45 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ExNewsExSpook
>>The first DDG-1000 is 90% complete, and should join the fleet on schedule; units two and three are still building at Bath. The capabilities of these vessels are tremendous, but they’re just too darned expensive. Meanwhile, we had existing DDG and cruiser designs that could be updated—and remain mission ready—for years to come.

At three years to complete one, all three hulls should have been launched and mission-ready by 2021-2026. Nice of the Chinese to wait that long for us to field three DDGs. Perhaps the eleven CG-47s we will have removed from service by then can come back to the fleet. ??

>>LCS was a good idea, but poorly executed. Biggest weakness, as I understand it, is a weak anti-air capability. So, if you have an adversary with even a rudimentary anti-ship/cruise missile capability, you’ll still need a cruiser or destroyer to protect the LCS. The idea of building 50 was preposterous, and you can make the case we don’t need the 30 or so that are planned. Meanwhile, we’re going to lay-up almost two dozen cruisers and destroyers so we can can maintain our carrier force (a good idea) while funding the DDG-1000 science project and trying to get something out of the LCS project.

The mission modules for the LCS can be removed/installed in three weeks, and only at a major shipyard. Tell me how that can be done during a war and make any sense. More than one admiral has called them "little crappy ships." They are going to O-5s instead of O-4s because we have so few ships left. They cannot survive one cruise missile hit and they keep breaking-down with an inadequate crew walking like zombies because of exhaustion. I realize that the Navy has to live within its budget, but this is the wrong way to do it. The ASW module still doesn't work, and the 5th gen AIP subs will run rings around them.

19 posted on 07/29/2014 8:24:57 AM PDT by pabianice (LINE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ
>>Not built? The Zumwalt was launched last October.

Mission ready... when?

>>And the LCS may have some flaws, even big ones, but that is not the same as “doesn’t work”. Do the engines run?

Not reliably.

>>Can it float?

The hulls are cracking.

>>Do the weapons function? Then it ‘works’.

The mission modules do not work to spec.

>>How effective it is remains to be seen but you can’t argue that it “doesn’t work”

True. The P-3 has been followed by the P-8. Word is that it can't do ASW, which is its primary mission. Again, 5th gen AIP subs will make a shambles of our fleet once the shooting starts. I can only imagine the horrified reaction from the country as they watch several of our carriers burn on live TV.

20 posted on 07/29/2014 8:32:52 AM PDT by pabianice (LINE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

Wait no carrier battle groups? Well We had a good run 240 years or so well just thankful im getting old


21 posted on 07/29/2014 9:02:46 AM PDT by al baby (Hi Mom…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: al baby

We’ll still have CSGs. Just not as many as we need (9 plus 1 or maybe 10 plus one) and we won’t deploy them as often.

The LCS was a good concept: you don’t need a Burke Class Aegis Destroyer for many missions (like providing a stable deck for SEALs to cap Somali pirates with sniper rifles) and if you’re going to build a ship for littoral ops it’s good to have it multimission capable (so replace the dedicated mine hunters and some of the ASW frigates).

But like a lot of government projects it got overloaded with requirements, became gold-plated and is nowhere near cost effective for the missions it’s most likely to conduct (anti piracy and other ops in low threat areas)


22 posted on 07/29/2014 9:14:09 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I’m not disputing your points...DDG-1000 should have been used in the same manner as the Seawolf attack sub; as a limited production technology testbed. We built three of the class, and a lot of the lessons learned/perfected on Seawolf have been integrated into the Virginia-class, making them a much better boat, at a lower per-unit cost.

Same thing for LCS..I’d stop production now, unless the Naval Special Warfare community can show a compelling reason they need more for a SEAL platform. Take whatever “positives” there are from the design, and start working on a new generation gunboat or light amphibious craft—or better yet, a more stealthy frigate that can perform many of the LCS roles and defend itself against a variety of threats. And some of the technology from DDG-1000 could be integrated in that platform as well.


23 posted on 07/29/2014 10:23:43 AM PDT by ExNewsExSpook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

So, perhaps instead of going with “blue” and “gold” crew deployment schedules, so the ships stay on-station longer, go with blue & gold and have everyone hot rack, allowing for a larger crew deployment, but not on station as long for unrep’ing and refit/repair in port.


24 posted on 07/29/2014 12:33:20 PM PDT by ro_dreaming (Chesterton, 'Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It’s been found hard and not tried')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

You did not say ‘mission ready’. You said built. Huge different.

Lots of engines have teething problems. Pick your favorite plane/boat/tank/etc and its engine probably needed some tweaks early on.

So do lots of things. That is why welding exists.

To spec? What part of the spec? Specs are easy to change. I do that for a living.

Yes clearly we are all doomed and no one can see it but you.

Folks like you were whining that the M4 Sherman was not good enough long after it won the war. There is no pleasing some people.


25 posted on 07/29/2014 2:35:40 PM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ExNewsExSpook

Agree on both counts. They both were useful testbeds and experiments. Some things you can mock up and decide if they are worthwhile and others you need to build and use operationally before the data is in. The reality is that you can’t usually build the better cheaper model until you have tried the fancy expensive one.

I get tired of people whining and crying about EVERY DAMN weapon system we have tried to procure in the last 25 years. Really? They all suck? Really? Well lets just hand the country to the chicoms now. /sarc

Useless chicken-littles.


26 posted on 07/29/2014 2:40:23 PM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | 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