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

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: 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 ]

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