Interesting discussions over at dodbuzz.com

[unhappycamper]

There is really some interesting dialogue in each article's comments.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/01/16/navy-still-expects-to-build-52-ship-lcs-fleet/

Navy Ordered to Drop LCS Fleet by 20 Ships
By Kris Osborn Thursday, January 16th, 2014 11:49 am


http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/01/16/navy-ordered-to-drop-lcs-fleet-by-20-ships/

Navy Ordered to Drop LCS Fleet by 20 Ships
By Kris Osborn Thursday, January 16th, 2014 11:49 am


Which one is correct?

[Ghost Dog]

1. Mmmm. "If our allies (and other western nations) are able to build similar sized ships

with stealthy designs, full military sea-frames, far more armament/protection, with mission packages for 1/3 less, then it isn't hard to see why every other allied navy that was initially interested in LCS has since walked away."

... Like this?

[center]
http://www.gizmag.com/type-26-global-combat-ship-unveiled/23791/ [/center]

... One wonders about final cost there too.

[Kaleva]

2. I found this comment to be quite interesting:

"Define hostile environment. Would it survive a firefight with a Blue naval force? No, but it’s not designed to. One needs to understand that the LCS is in fact two completely separate things. It’s a seaframe (one type built by Lockheed Martin and another built by Austal), and then there’s the Mission Package which it introduced as a separate system, by separate program, and a multitude of contractors contributing. The survavability falls on the seaframe and the mission capabilities fall on the MP."

The LCS has the capability to remain state of the art thru it's entire lifespan as it is easier and far cheaper to upgrade the Mission Packages to keep them current then to upgrade the ship itself.

[Ghost Dog]

3. Yeah. Fast shallow-water capability. Very cool.

Fragile, though. Be careful, please.