"One of the two $700 million ships completed so far has had a major leak and crack in its hull, while the other is at sea, testing equipment that is failing to distinguish underwater mines from glints of light on the waves. More ominously, a report late last year by the Pentagon’s top weapons tester said the ship “is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment.”
There were two prototypes built by two different firms to see which would be selected for mass production. They are a pretty good idea given current needs and far cheaper than the destroyer-class ships which essentially have the same function. The tweaking of all sorts of armaments in the developmental stages is part and parcel of the process.
There were two prototypes built by two different firms to see which would be selected for mass production. They are a pretty good idea given current needs and far cheaper than the destroyer-class ships which essentially have the same function. The tweaking of all sorts of armaments in the developmental stages is part and parcel of the process.
Really? Did I say that the were the same? The littoral can do many of the functions now assigned to destroyers. Additionally, it is faster and far more maneuverable in close-quarter actions as might be had in the Straits of Hormuz and dealing with Somali pirate and the like. Destroyers in the USN are designed primarily as escorts of carrier-based fleets and are not that effective in those functions.You have no idea what you are talking about. A Burke can deliver ~100 long range missiles capable of attacking targets on land sea or air, backed by torpedos and 5 inch guns. The littoral combat ship has a 57mm cannon and tiny missiles than can't even reach 10 km. It is outgunned by anything larger than a speed boat, it would get slaughtered by missile boats 1/3 its displacement. The whole design is a good example of the sheer incompetence that permeates all too many military procurement projects nowadays. There a multiple foreign designs that are both more capable and cheaper which would have been better options.
This is one of the more obvious things about forums like this and post like yours. It is like you realized you don't have a single relevant or intelligent thing to say about the subject, but you're gonna post anyway!:roll:Welcome to the military-industrial complex, OP! Now, don't go bashing the military, now. That means you hate America. You don't hate America, do you? Why would you want to make us less safe?
Good Lord, a NYT Paul Krugman op-ed here?! What on earth does that shifty-eyed hack have to do with the topic?
My thoughts exactly. I'm always amazed at this class of posters for whom posting a link to an op/ed or blog is supposed to pass as *their* opinion or point. No explanation, no pointing to anything in the link as relevant, just here is a link. Wade through it and guess which and what points I am pretending are mine.Good Lord, a NYT Paul Krugman op-ed here?! What on earth does that shifty-eyed hack have to do with the topic?
This is one of the more obvious things about forums like this and post like yours. It is like you realized you don't have a single relevant or intelligent thing to say about the subject, but you're gonna post anyway!:roll:
Krugman's expertise again?Should I copy/paste some past posts about the military appropriations process? I've got some good ones regarding Boeing and that ridiculous tanker contract.
In this thread? Why not, it would be about as intelligent or relevant as your last brain fart of a reply.Should I copy/paste some past posts about the military appropriations process? I've got some good ones regarding Boeing and that ridiculous tanker contract.
In this thread? Why not, it would be about as intelligent or relevant as your last brain fart of a reply.
I'm sorry you thought you had actually expressed an opinion on the topic, of course you had not. So the source of the confusion here is you. Good for you that you finally got around to doing that.I'm sorry my opinion on the military appropriations process was unclear to you. I'll spell it out:
It's bad. Corrupt. We buy crap we don't need for more money than we should be spending on it.
That help?
Really? Did I say that the were the same? The littoral can do many of the functions now assigned to destroyers. Additionally, it is faster and far more maneuverable in close-quarter actions as might be had in the Straits of Hormuz and dealing with Somali pirate and the like. Destroyers in the USN are designed primarily as escorts of carrier-based fleets and are not that effective in those functions.
Don't look at me, you were the one who chose to compare the Burke class. The Perry class were very expensive to operate and not sufficient for the tactical operations needed today.The LCS will be replacing Perrys not Burkes. The straight of Hormuz is a perfect example of how stupid the LCS is. Iranian missile boats would simply slaughter them with C-802 missiles at 10x the range of LCS's weapons. Sure you can attack speedboats with it, but its ridiculous to have a 400 million dollar warship that can only hunt pirates. The speed requirement is pointless, as helicopters are obviously much faster than any boat and best suited for chasing fast targets.
For comparison, a Meko corvette is around 300 million each (not including volume discount for large orders), has real firepower and no development risks.
The LCS will be replacing Perrys not Burkes. The straight of Hormuz is a perfect example of how stupid the LCS is. Iranian missile boats would simply slaughter them with C-802 missiles at 10x the range of LCS's weapons. Sure you can attack speedboats with it, but its ridiculous to have a 400 million dollar warship that can only hunt pirates. The speed requirement is pointless, as helicopters are obviously much faster than any boat and best suited for chasing fast targets.
For comparison, a Meko corvette is around 300 million each (not including volume discount for large orders), has real firepower and no development risks.
Smaller Navy Ship Has a Rocky Past and Key Support
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: April 5, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/us/politics/a-smaller-navy-ship-with-troubles-but-presidents-backing.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
Our President is insisting we build 55 of these even though they are not expected 'to be survivable' in a combat environment?
You realize that Iran only bought about 60 C-802s? How many they might have left is unkown, but well under 60. Iran just does not have the maintenance capability to keep a system like that in operation.
For what they are, the Littoral should be a good ship. Comparing them to ships designed for other roles will lead false comparisons.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?