Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told

[Tony_FLADEM]

The U.S. Navy’s troubled Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel intended to be small and speedy for use in shallow waters close to shore, lacks the firepower it needs, a top U.S. navy commander said in a classified memo.

Copeman’s memo, prepared late last year at the request of Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, indicates the Navy may be starting to re-examine the $37 billion program. The ship has been beset by troubles, including cracks and corrosion, its price has doubled since 2005 to $440 million per vessel and a decision to build two versions will add to longterm operating costs.

A review could lead to an eventual redesign of the ship or the development of an entirely new vessel.

“He’s raising issues which no one with active-duty stars on their shoulders has said before,” said Norman Polmar, an independent naval analyst and author who’s spoken to Navy officials about Copeman’s memo. “He’s not playing the total party line. I think it will have an impact on people expressing their views.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-28/ships-costing-u-s-37-billion-lack-firepower-navy-told.html

[Recursion]

1. Mission creep

It wasn't planned for missions where it would be doing a lot of shooting; it has defensive weaponry only. The point is that it can deliver the people who will do the shooting over a much greater percentage of world coastlines than a destroyer can.

[TheMightyFavog]

3. So it's an overpriced landing craft, then?

[Poll_Blind]

5. IMO, and I'm not an expert, but it's more like a beefed up Coast Guard vessel.

Oh sure, looks like a destroyer...sort of. But really, the role it plays is mostly covered by coast guard vessels, which also have some armament on deck. Do we need cannons on our fucking coastal ships? I mean, a couple of .50 cals and if they need to they can tear up shit from here to Sunday with 'em.

The only convincing use I could think off was somewhere like off the coast of Africa, which is swarming with pirates. But are we gonna build a ship just for shit like that? I mean, that just doesn't seem to give the returns based on how much it costs.

PB

[Recursion]

13. Signals, command, helicopter squadron

Think of it as a floating AWACS.

[stevenleser]

7. No, but it can support landing craft as they head to the shore.

It's meant to operate close to shore, not go ashore.

[Recursion]

12. No! The overpriced landing craft is the SSC!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-to-Shore_Connector

It will replace the LCAC in 2019.

The LCS does signals, command and control, basic logistics, and basic air support for things like the SSC.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Before I even clicked on the post I KNEW it was about the Littoral.

It's a bizarre shit of a ship, IMO. Just have a look. It's not a combat ship, it's not an aircraft carrier, it's...

It's a weird middle ground that I just don't get. I never could understand what the pressing need was for it.

I'm not a ship expert by any means but I'm calling it now: Any redesign they put on it is just going to turn it into something more standard. As in, they could have just built something more conventional in the first place and avoided this idiocy.

PB

Edit: In some ways, it's the Osprey of ships. Got a little something here that looks cool and useful, got a little something there that looks useful but overall? Not so useful.

[HereSince1628]

8. Oh, these things tend to work out by the time they reach hulll #20.

Who needs navigation radar when you're slowing down to have a fire fight??

Unsurvivable? Hmph! They've already added floatation chambers to the hull to deal with that sink rate problem

[Poll_Blind]

9. I couldn't help but shudder at your "hull #20" comment. Because...

....on one hand it's a joke, on the other hand it's probably true. I think I read we're going to build something like 50 of these things.

I mean...come on.

PB

[HereSince1628]

11. What will sailors say LCS stands for? Loser Cruiser Sinkable?

When it returns from it's first overseas mission, I'm pretty sure it's going to have a nickname.

[Recursion]

14. The LCAC took until Hull # 60

At which point they switched manufacturers.

No, I'm not kidding. Totally different circuitry and control systems.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Translation: Our bloated and useless military wants more money.

[jpak]

6. They should have developed a variety of special purpose vessels for Littoral Combat

Rather than One-Size-Fits-aAll.

They should have built: small stealthy mine warfare, fast stealthy surface/AA warfare, fast stealthy shallow water ASW, fast stealthy amphibious vessels...

The current LCVs would be death traps in real combat.

I hope this program gets the axe...

yup

[Poll_Blind]

10. And there's the rub: From some reading I've done about it, the Littoral's role is...

....mainly described by the vehicles/aircraft/etc it carries on it or tows behind it. Supposedly, the ship itself is very "configurable" in a standard sense. But I mean, look at the damned thing. If I understand things correctly, it's basically a an armored sea tow truck. And I have to question the need for something like that.

Oh, I'm sure it would make an excellent mobile drone base. Oh, I have no doubt about that. Put a buch of flying robot death machines on the back and you can harrass or assassinate the shit out of any number of opponants...as long as none of them have any kind of real firepower to fight back with. And then I see the Littoral as toast.

PB

[Recursion]

15. Shallow draft and a lot of room for signals and radar

I think it can carry a company or so of Marines, too.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

16. What's the Navy's expectations?

A report by the Pentagon's director of Operational Test and Evaluation found that neither design was expected to "be survivable in a hostile combat environment"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship

Well, as long as the Navy doesn't expect it to be survivable, then it doesn't seem to be a problem.

More money down the drain.

[Recursion]

17. Neither is Air Force One

Not every military vehicle is envisioned for deployment to a hostile combat environment.

[msongs]

18. moral: make the builders present a quality finished product before spending taxpayer $$

your war profiteering corporation wants the government to buy your product? design it, build it, test it, certify it out of your stockholders' pockets, not at the taxpayers' expense. Then when you can PROVE your product's value, offer it for sale. You know..like PRIVATE ENTERPRISE does.

[Demo_Chris]

19. Moral: think simple, cheap, and functional