• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Navy Litoral ships finally working in a useful capacity.

Dayton3

Dayton3

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
12,687
Reaction score
1,938
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

MSN

www.msn.com

Good news, they finally got them to serve a useful function
They seem to do well in close combat in litorral waters. Not two major functions as envisioned but at least one.
 
Dayton3 said:

MSN

www.msn.com

Good news, they finally got them to serve a useful function
They seem to do well in close combat in litorral waters. Not two major functions as envisioned but at least one.
Click to expand...
When Rumsfeld got things right, he got things really right. But when he got things wrong, he got them really wrong. And Littorals he got way wrong. So much promise, but no one really asked "how is this all going to work together" kinda questions, so you had all these great ideas on paper, that failed miserably in the real world. I myself had really high hopes for the ships, and am glad they will serve some purpose, but the mess illustrates the failure of anyone to say "this is not working, lets stop before we lose even more".
 
Dayton3 said:

MSN

www.msn.com

Good news, they finally got them to serve a useful function
They seem to do well in close combat in litorral waters. Not two major functions as envisioned but at least one.
Click to expand...
The article's headline is more than a little deceptive. The first class of Littoral Combat ship wasn't launched until 2008, and the second hull design wasn't christened until 2013. That's 14 and 9 years respectively - not 20.

The article does get into the subsequent nitty gritty performance failures of the vessels, so no excuses there. But here it's worth noting our history of cutting edge military weapons platform development. For example, look what it took for the F-111A to go from planning to any useful role as an F-111C variant. Years over time, failure after failure, and billions over budget.

Funnier still, consider what we once called the Bell/NASA XV-15 tiltrotor, or MV-22. That was a design project that started in 1982 - 40 years ago - and resulted in what is now the Marines/Navy V-22 Osprey, the bugs and failures of which we still haven't entirely ironed out. That much sought after platform has had 13 full hull loss accidents, 51 fatalities, and have continued to fall out of the sky and kill people up to as recently as just last month! There were plenty of critics that said we should have given up on that twitchy little bird as far back as 2007 - 15 years ago. But once any military transport or weapons platform is seriously put into motion, they take on a life of their own, becoming almost impossible to shut down. And that is done quite deliberately by the manufacturer who gets the contract.
 
MamboDervish said:
The article's headline is more than a little deceptive. The first class of Littoral Combat ship wasn't launched until 2008, and the second hull design wasn't christened until 2013. That's 14 and 9 years respectively - not 20.

The article does get into the subsequent nitty gritty performance failures of the vessels, so no excuses there. But here it's worth noting our history of cutting edge military weapons platform development. For example, look what it took for the F-111A to go from planning to any useful role as an F-111C variant. Years over time, failure after failure, and billions over budget.

Funnier still, consider what we once called the Bell/NASA XV-15 tiltrotor, or MV-22. That was a design project that started in 1982 - 40 years ago - and resulted in what is now the Marines/Navy V-22 Osprey, the bugs and failures of which we still haven't entirely ironed out. That much sought after platform has had 13 full hull loss accidents, 51 fatalities, and have continued to fall out of the sky and kill people up to as recently as just last month! There were plenty of critics that said we should have given up on that twitchy little bird as far back as 2007 - 15 years ago. But once any military transport or weapons platform is seriously put into motion, they take on a life of their own, becoming almost impossible to shut down. And that is done quite deliberately by the manufacturer who gets the contract.
Click to expand...
Hear ye, hear ye, gather round and get ya' some of this wonderful corporate welfare, try it, you'll like it.
 
Dayton3 said:

MSN

www.msn.com

Good news, they finally got them to serve a useful function
They seem to do well in close combat in litorral waters. Not two major functions as envisioned but at least one.
Click to expand...


A very expensive ship for littoral combat operations. Especially with a 57mm gun as its main armament
 
Dayton3 said:

MSN

www.msn.com

Good news, they finally got them to serve a useful function
They seem to do well in close combat in litorral waters. Not two major functions as envisioned but at least one.
Click to expand...
The biggest failure was the best idea. Having one plug-and-play boat that could be converted at dock from a surface fighter, to a sub hunter, to mine hunter in less than 60 days (as I recall) was actually brilliant and should have worked and maybe would have if congress didn't fund it before the Navy and the contractors could design it. The idea was to build the ship in construction modules that could be changed out quickly to convert the ship to what was needed at the time.

Don't let anything I say or anything the article said convince you that two "completely" different architectures were needed. The Navy was supposed to pick the Fincantieri design OR the Austral design, not both. I pretty much threw that project in the trash when they decided to build both.

We have endured big jokes before and will endure them again. Hopefully we get an F-35 once in awhile along the way.
 
Redress said:
When Rumsfeld got things right, he got things really right. But when he got things wrong, he got them really wrong. And Littorals he got way wrong. So much promise, but no one really asked "how is this all going to work together" kinda questions, so you had all these great ideas on paper, that failed miserably in the real world. I myself had really high hopes for the ships, and am glad they will serve some purpose, but the mess illustrates the failure of anyone to say "this is not working, lets stop before we lose even more".
Click to expand...
Think of the time and of the Iran Navy and of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. These ships could do 56mph. Rummy did good. Congress did bad.
 
The littoral ships at Little Creek and Norfolk are broke down more than they are underway and they are limited to certain sea states due to the horrendous hull stress cracking.

Poorly designed money pits and the crews sit around with their faces stuck in their cell phones.

Some of the sailors on at Little Creek jokingly call them the best "shore duty" on the east coast.
 
I must admit I always thought the trimaran design looked really cool but apparently looking cool doesn't actually help it do what it's supposed to do.

From what little I know they've been a bloody disaster from the second they entered service.
 
Peter said:
I must admit I always thought the trimaran design looked really cool but apparently looking cool doesn't actually help it do what it's supposed to do.

From what little I know they've been a bloody disaster from the second they entered service.
Click to expand...

Weirdly, the trimaran design is the one that isn’t complete garbage. The conventional hull is the total failure.
 
Questerr said:
Weirdly, the trimaran design is the one that isn’t complete garbage. The conventional hull is the total failure.
Click to expand...

Yey, Trimarans all the way from now then.
How about 5 hulls?
Super duper stable.
 
Peter said:
Yey, Trimarans all the way from now then.
How about 5 hulls?
Super duper stable.
Click to expand...

You joke but there are designs out there for quad-hulled SWATH warships.
 
Questerr said:
You joke but there are designs out there for quad-hulled SWATH warships.
Click to expand...

Ah, yeah,
Now we're talking.
An entire Navy designed by 5 year olds on a suger rush, what could possibly go wrong.
 
Peter said:
Ah, yeah,
Now we're talking.
An entire Navy designed by 5 year olds on a suger rush, what could possibly go wrong.
Click to expand...

It’s not a bad idea. SWATH hills are notably good at dealing with rough seas and are more difficult for torpedoes to attacks.
 
Questerr said:
It’s not a bad idea. SWATH hills are notably good at dealing with rough seas and are more difficult for torpedoes to attacks.
Click to expand...

One thing they must have is Dazzle Camo as that stuff is amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom