Jump to content


Photo

Us Navy's Lcs


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,542 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 1224 PM

Some sources seem to indicate that the US Navy is having buyer's remorse over the Littoral Combat Ship, and is looking instead to the FFG(X). If the USN decided to dump the existing LCS's entirely, what would be a likey disposition? Pass them on to the Coast Guard, or possibly an Excess Defense Articles gift to a foreign navy?


  • 0

#2 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,529 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 02 June 2019 - 1605 PM

I doubt the USCG would want them.
  • 0

#3 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,195 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 02 June 2019 - 1935 PM

Scroll down the forum; theres a pretty extensive thread on the LCS. The Navy was warned about the shortcomings of the class from the very beginning.
The ships are nowhere near seaworthy enough for the Coasties.
  • 0

#4 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 03 June 2019 - 0203 AM

Form a squadron placed in the Gulf. Their lack of seaworthiness is probably going to be less of a concern there.Or just do it properly and give them to the Saudi's. That would solve a lot of problems.

 

 

How did the USN end up so far off track they thew away all their figs for this piece of crap?


  • 0

#5 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,195 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 03 June 2019 - 0737 AM

Read through and laugh...or weep.

http://www.tank-net....showtopic=37248

 

http://www.tank-net....showtopic=38971

 

http://www.tank-net....showtopic=43115


Edited by shep854, 03 June 2019 - 0740 AM.

  • 0

#6 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,528 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 03 June 2019 - 1128 AM

Commander Salamander has had a lot to say about LCS.
 


  • 0

#7 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 03 June 2019 - 1133 AM

Form a squadron placed in the Gulf. Their lack of seaworthiness is probably going to be less of a concern there.Or just do it properly and give them to the Saudi's. That would solve a lot of problems.

 

 

How did the USN end up so far off track they thew away all their figs for this piece of crap?

 

We haven't hanged many admirals and senior bureaucrats in far too long a time.  S/F....Ken M


  • 0

#8 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,454 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 June 2019 - 1218 PM

The Navy's version of Stryker brigades, someone wanted to leave a legacy and they were surrounded by "that's a great idea sir!" men right before designing the thing by committee


  • 0

#9 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 04 June 2019 - 0151 AM

Funnily enough, I was on archive.org last night and found a document questioning whether the LCS was a really good idea or not. Written in 2006. :D

 

I dont think the Strykers were such a bad idea. it was a means of providing a certain level of combat power into a theatre quickly. And it worked. Even in Iraq, where the worst thing you can say about it is that it was more survivable to IED's than Armoured Hummers. Where it falls down is the idea it can replace heavy combat power. Even the Soviets never envisaged the BTR doing that, and the Russian's still dont. Rapid exploitation, well that it can do. Anywhere other than the Baltic states, I think it would be nearly ideal.


  • 0

#10 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,528 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 04 June 2019 - 0249 AM

They also don't envision Strykers replacing 2.5 ton and 5 ton cargo trucks, HMMWVs in the utility role and Combat Engineering and Recovery systems with special kit change outs. 

The LCS is supposed to be a combat vessel, a mine sweeper, a in short patrol craft, and a bunch of other mission specific module swap out functions. 


  • 0

#11 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 04 June 2019 - 0258 AM

They also don't envision Strykers replacing 2.5 ton and 5 ton cargo trucks, HMMWVs in the utility role and Combat Engineering and Recovery systems with special kit change outs. 

The LCS is supposed to be a combat vessel, a mine sweeper, a in short patrol craft, and a bunch of other mission specific module swap out functions. 

 

If they were envisaging it as a Flower Class Corvette for the 21st Century, id be entirely on board. There is a requirement for a cheap relatively expendable vessel like that. Heck, we are building one to replace some of our Frigates AND our offshore patrol vessels.

 

Where it went wrong is costing an arm and a leg for the capability. The Europeans managed to have a swap in capability like that 40 years ago, and there was no notable increase in cost.


  • 0

#12 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,195 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 04 June 2019 - 0728 AM

'The BEST at EVERYTHING' seems to be a chronic American disease.


  • 0

#13 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 04 June 2019 - 0735 AM

A fairly recent one. I look at vietnam and you were using 30 year old lashups of C47's and 7.62 gunpods for your most effective ground support weapon.  Even in Afghanistan, the primary anti mortar weapon was a good year blimp and a phalanx on a flatbed. So make do and mend seems to work, at least some of the time.

 

I have a lot of respect for the USN, but at present it looks uncomfortably close to disarray. They introduce a new carrier that was supposed to be cheaper and less expensive than the predecessors, and it wasnt. It has a catapult system still being debugged. It has an air wing that is unsuitable for long range operations against china, which it expects to do. It has no long range tanker, which it withdrew less than 5 years ago due to budget cuts. And it has had no fleet defence fighter since it lost Tomcat back in 2006. And that's before we get onto the problems of collisions among the escorts.

 

Well, the only way is up from here, lets be positive.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 04 June 2019 - 0735 AM.

  • 0

#14 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,528 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 04 June 2019 - 1029 AM

We seem to do our best work when we're under the gun for time. Give us a budget, a lot of time and a committee to manage it...and it's a cockup. 


  • 0

#15 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 04 June 2019 - 1041 AM

Scroll down the forum; theres a pretty extensive thread on the LCS. The Navy was warned about the shortcomings of the class from the very beginning.
The ships are nowhere near seaworthy enough for the Coasties.

 

Not only that, the USCG needs ships that are more like swiss army knives, that is multi purpose and useful for many tasks. Which LCS clearly are not. The coast guard cnanot sail back to harbor and reconfigure.

 

 

File LCS under failed try. Happens with any R&D.


Edited by Panzermann, 04 June 2019 - 1044 AM.

  • 0

#16 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 04 June 2019 - 1043 AM

Yes, I think you have a point Ryan.

 

I think back to the US Navy of the 1970's which was REALLY stretched, and still with aging, WW2 build equipment. And thats the Navy that ultimately gave the Nimitz class Carrier, the 688 class attack submarine, the Aegis Cruiser (and destroyer), the F14, the F18, and, possibly the most usefully, the Spruance class destroyer. Perhaps most usefully,  you had a generation of leadership that had served in WW2 and Vietnam.

 

Oh, it will get worked out, I have no doubt. It does take your head getting around how things got so knotted up though.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 04 June 2019 - 1045 AM.

  • 0

#17 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 04 June 2019 - 1045 AM

 

Scroll down the forum; theres a pretty extensive thread on the LCS. The Navy was warned about the shortcomings of the class from the very beginning.
The ships are nowhere near seaworthy enough for the Coasties.

 

Not only that, the USCG needs ships that are more like swiss army knives, that is multi purpose and useful for many tasks. Which LCS clearly are not. File LCS under failed try. Happens with any R&D.

 

 

I cant see them using the Catamaran in a REALLY heavy sea. The single hull design they might get away with. Or they can sell them off to drug runners. :)


  • 0

#18 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,195 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 04 June 2019 - 1143 AM

We seem to do our best work when we're under the gun for time. Give us a budget, a lot of time and a committee to manage it...and it's a cockup. 

More like, when the actual users who bet their lives on the product put something together, its likelier to be simple, fairly reliable and cheap.
  • 0

#19 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,528 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 04 June 2019 - 1437 PM

What really confused the crap out of me was how they thought it made sense to have a general purpose warship like the LCS would somehow sub-specialize in a role previously taken on by wooden or fiber glass hulled minesweepers (Like the Avenger Class) which had very special fittings for handling their jobs and where side scan sonar was something that was rather particular to a hull. 

300px-USS_Avenger_MCM-1.jpg

Sometimes you can get away with a multi-tool, but usually, a specialist tool that's fitted out for specific roles is more necessary. 

I think the USCG's craft are arguably multi-tools but they're larger, heavier and slower as sort of a large multi-tool like a Gerber rather than being small and fast like a pocket knife. But when you need specialized tools they're ALWAYS going to be better at their job than a multi-function tool. A really good chisel is a poor screw driver. A really nifty multi-tool is a poor screwdriver when you have stuck fasteners. 


  • 0

#20 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yogo Shiro

Posted 04 June 2019 - 1501 PM

I have a lot of respect for the USN, but at present it looks uncomfortably close to disarray. They introduce a new carrier that was supposed to be cheaper and less expensive than the predecessors, and it wasnt. It has a catapult system still being debugged. It has an air wing that is unsuitable for long range operations against china, which it expects to do. It has no long range tanker, which it withdrew less than 5 years ago due to budget cuts. And it has had no fleet defence fighter since it lost Tomcat back in 2006. And that's before we get onto the problems of collisions among the escorts.
 
Well, the only way is up from here, lets be positive.


You forgot the most advanced 155mm naval gun in the world, which has no ammo for it...
USN feels it needs to come up with new ideas and technologies to justify funding, which inevitably leads to concepts which are revolutionary for sake of being revolutionary.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users