[sukhoi-30mki]

[G Larry]

I hear Clive Bundy is willing to conduct some test firing out at his place.

[DeaconBenjamin]

LCS — I thought you meant they were suggesting a 76 mm gun for the Local Coin Store.

[2harddrive]

That is a BUNCH more TNT on target! BUY IT!

[DesertRhino]

Currently, the retarded LCS is less powerful than a single light tank. A total joke. A light 57mm gun and a high angle missile system that is basically the equivalent of an 81 mortar.

It is exempted from historic USN damage control standards.
A WWII Fletcher class destroyer is immensely more deadly. An LCS would be utterly helpless. The Fletcher has a shallower draft.

An LCS cant even operate in shallow water. A single tank on the beach could easily destroy it. All it is good for is the careers of procurement and surface warfare officers by giving them a ship without all the worries of using it to fight.

[edpc]

Just replace the gun with one of Obama’s famous “strongly worded messages.” Then, we’ll have a Literal Combat Ship.

[ryan71]

Switching to a 76mm is good. Getting rid of LCS is better. Build more Arleigh Burkes.

[MasterGunner01]

Official Navy documents refer to the LCS as a “sub-optimal” warship = expendable. Maybe that is why the Navy has refused to get serious about giving it any kind of adequate weapons to defend the LCS in the dangerous waters of the littorals. The LCS design was centered around only one concern — high speed above everything else. No one at NavSea registered that an LCS doing over 45+ knots still cannot out run an anti-ship cruise missile going Mach 0.8 plus. Armament is an after thought and the crew size makes effective damage control well nigh impossible. In short, the multi-billion dollar LCS is a throw away ship with a throw away crew in a throw away Navy.

[Jimmy Valentine]

Questions: what is the rate of fire on that thing? Also why a three inch? The USS DeMoines had automatic eight inch guns in multiple turrets