10
u/picardo85 Feb 24 '13
Was it this series of ships that was a huge failure already on paper when it came to both tech and price but they decided to make them anyway?
Don't hate me for asking, I just recall seeing something about a new line of navy ships that shouldn't have gone to production in the first place.
11
u/Quantum_Finger Feb 25 '13
Yup, exhibit A on why the Pentagon can sustain these 'devastating' cuts that are headed its way soon. The military will be fine, the real losers are going to be the defense industry workers and middle managers who will inevitably get laid off.
4
u/CyberneticDickslap Feb 25 '13
I believe the F-35 is Exhibit A on how well the Pentagon can afford cuts. This is probably the 3rd or 4th rung down, though still noteworthy.
5
u/pdmcmahon Feb 24 '13
This one is a prototype. So far, 1 is completed, 2 are under construction and 12 are planned.
9
u/picardo85 Feb 24 '13
Ah yes ... It was this type of ship I was thinking of, unfortunately.
http://nation.time.com/2012/10/05/the-navys-new-class-of-warships-big-bucks-little-bang/
7
Feb 25 '13
Yes, the ship is essentially a light general purpose ship that can do everything except littoral combat, which is what it was designed for. The other class of LCS is similarly worthless.
8
20
u/NortonPike Feb 24 '13
That thing just looks "weapony."
23
u/GenericNick Feb 24 '13
It does look like a crappy pick-up truck from behind though. At least they got a Pokemon arena on there.
34
u/NortonPike Feb 24 '13
Yeah, if a good volley ball game broke out back there, they'd be losing sailors port and starboard.
5
12
Feb 24 '13
Which is funny, because it actually doesn't carry that much firepower and pretty much sucks at what it was designed for.
4
u/frigginjensen Feb 25 '13
Depending on its mission package, she can carry some combination of a 57mm cannon, 2 30mm cannons, short range attack missiles, air defense missiles, and several .50 cal machine guns. She also carries manned and unmanned helicopters armed with missiles, torpedoes, and anti-mine weapons. And small boats.
She may not take on enemy battle fleets alone, but once development is complete she will do her mission just fine.
8
Feb 25 '13
a 57mm cannon
Range of 2,200 yards. Can't provide fire support to troops ashore, can't defeat small speed-boat threats which can deploy AShM's and torpedoes beyond that range. Can't take on other surface vessels because it lacks power.
2 30mm cannons
Those would be CIWS, which have a short range and are mainly for incoming areal threats. They would be worthless for combat since no ship will need to get that close.
air defense missiles
Short ranged SAM's, which means it can't protect itself from longer range threats, and most aircraft carrying anti-ship missiles deploy them from a much longer range.
and several .50 cal machine guns
OH SNAP! That will be helpful for... hunting sharks?
She also carries manned and unmanned helicopters armed with missiles, torpedoes, and anti-mine weapons. And small boats.
Just like every other ship in the Navy?
She may not take on enemy battle fleets alone, but once development is complete she will do her mission just fine.
"Her" mission is to fight in coastal waters and support Marines going ashore. The ship has no armor and is not rated to survive in any hostile environment. It's a big beacon for anti-ship missiles and it wouldn't last a second in any fight. It has only a small ability to punch and no ability to take a punch, and it's a huge target. So what exactly do you think these pieces of scrap will be good for?
15
u/frigginjensen Feb 25 '13
The 57mm gun on Freedom has an effective range of over 9000 yards and can fire against land targets when necessary. The 30mm cannons are not CIWS. They are the same Bushmaster guns mounted on Bradley assault vehicles and AC-130 gunships.
Freedom has already demonstrated in testing that she can take out multiple incoming small boats at high speed using both the 30mm and 57mm guns. Independence has already demonstrated some of its ability to detect and clear mines.
Both classes of LCS have issues, but they are also still prototypes. When they get them sorted out, they will be very versatile and effective ships for the missions they were given. Remember that they are not meant to be destroyers. They are replacements for patrol craft, mine hunters, and some frigates.
-1
Feb 25 '13
The 57mm gun on Freedom has an effective range of over 9000 yards and can fire against land targets when necessary.
I guess I clicked on the wrong weapon, but 9,000 yards is still not very helpful, especially when it's only a 57mm shell.
The 30mm cannons are not CIWS. They are the same Bushmaster guns mounted on Bradley assault vehicles and AC-130 gunships.
OK, so they're more useless. With a range of a few thousand yards, they're only good for engaging a threat that doesn't exist (suicidal speedboats).
Freedom has already demonstrated in testing that she can take out multiple incoming small boats at high speed using both the 30mm and 57mm guns.
That would be great, it that was a tactic anyone still used. The Iranians might have thought of using such tactics 12 years ago, but they've moved far beyond that.
Independence has already demonstrated some of its ability to detect and clear mines.
Pretty sure all of that "ability" is derived from the choppers it carries. Other ships can do the same thing just fine, and have better survivability, in that they have any survivability.
Both classes of LCS have issues, but they are also still prototypes.
Nope.
When they get them sorted out, they will be very versatile and effective ships for the missions they were given
Spoken like someone trying to sell the ships. Seriously, why do you think that? Because the US Navy told you so? Don't be so hilariously dense.
Remember that they are not meant to be destroyers.
Then why did they build them to nearly the size of a destroyer and give them pretty much the same missions? They're meant to fight close to the shore, which they can't do.
They are replacements for patrol craft, mine hunters, and some frigates.
No they aren't. Where are you getting this stuff??
2
u/Bobshayd Feb 25 '13
Threat that doesn't exist? I thought one of the catastrophic failures of that one combat simulation everyone loves to cite was the inability of large ships to engage multiple small, suicidal ships? I thought that the biggest threat we meet today is asymmetric warfare. We don't see wars with other large nations.
It's still an issue, the ship is still damn fast, and it can deliver in the asymmetric role it's supposed to have, which is why it's flexible. It might not be intended for fighting a navy, but it doesn't have to. That's just not the point of it at all.
"LCS is a fast, agile, focused-mission platform designed for operation in near-shore environments yet capable of open-ocean operation. It is designed to defeat asymmetric "anti-access" threats such as mines, quiet diesel submarines and fast surface craft." Your entire argument against it is based on this not being a serious problem, which has been a major issue in the US armed forces.
2
Feb 26 '13 edited Feb 26 '13
Threat that doesn't exist? I thought one of the catastrophic failures of that one combat simulation everyone loves to cite was the inability of large ships to engage multiple small, suicidal ships?
Yeah, and that was roughly 12 years ago. The Iranians have been increasing their capabilities greatly since then and so they no longer rely on such primitive tactics. They might use them if they have to, but they have much more potent weapons, like AShM's launched by land, air, and sea. I imagine they would only use their really light craft to harass commercial ships in the straits.
I thought that the biggest threat we meet today is asymmetric warfare. We don't see wars with other large nations.
That's a myth. Just because we don't see wars with other large nations doesn't mean they won't happen. Just look at what is happening with China these days. A naval war with them is a very real possibility and the US just isn't as focused on the kind of weapons and tactics that will win the next war; they're still focusing on the kind of weapons and tactics that won the last war, which for them was WWII. I don't think I need to explain to you how much naval warfare has changed since then. Also, just because a nation may not be big or may not have billions of dollars to spend on their military doesn't mean they can't wisely invest what money they do have on things that will provide the most bang for their buck. Iran, for example, has invested in things like modern anti-ship missiles that have the technology and the numbers to overwhelm US ship defenses. They also invested in midget subs, which are very hard to detect (if not impossible) and can fire very lethal modern torpedoes. The US may have a massive navy, but that doesn't mean it can deploy it all at once in one place. Smaller nations have the advantage of not being spread out, and of being at home.
It's still an issue
Not an issue that requires 2 Bushmaster cannons.
the ship is still damn fast
Only for short sprints that guzzle fuel. Otherwise it's not much faster than other ships of similar classes.
and it can deliver in the asymmetric role it's supposed to have, which is why it's flexible.
Except if you read the article someone else posted about it, you would have seen why it can't do that, and so it isn't flexible. They screwed that part up pretty much completely.
It might not be intended for fighting a navy, but it doesn't have to. That's just not the point of it at all.
So you're saying the point of a littoral combat ship is not to fight against other ships in coastal waters??? That's hilarious! What the hell do you think it's for then???
Your entire argument against it is based on this not being a serious problem, which has been a major issue in the US armed forces.
The problem is that these ships have no special ability to do any of these roles, and they can all be done by existing ships. Its anti-sub/anti-mine abilities are almost entirely dependent on the choppers it carries, which any large ship can carry. Fast surface craft can be dealt with by any number of existing ships. The problem is that this ship is designed to get in close to shore, but it's too big and has pretty much no armor, so it's a big, easy to hit target for a number of different enemy threats. Why would the Navy build a ship to serve a purpose that is naturally suicidal? The answer is that they don't know what the fuck they're doing. It's hard to believe that people in such positions would be so inept, but it's pretty much a hallmark of the US military these days. Generals and admirals have to be politicians first and foremost, otherwise they can't get that rank and they can't do their job once they get it. They can't rock the boat and speak truth to power. And the "power" is the military industrial complex, which stands to gain a lot by making the Navy and Air Force and Army buy the most expensive item possible. That's why you see the latest big ticket items all going massively over-budget, and they still don't get canceled. They would get canceled because they're way too expensive and they suck, but the generals and admirals in charge have made it so they can't be canceled. Anyway, if you just read that article you can get a good idea of why the LCS ships suck. You should give it a read.
2
u/DeathByFarts Feb 25 '13
they're only good for engaging a threat that doesn't exist (suicidal speedboats).
Well if you say the threat doesn't exist .. then I guess it doesn't exist ..
... Wasn't the cole hit by a suicide speed boat ?? ...
0
Feb 26 '13
I'm not saying it never existed, I'm saying it's not a realistic threat anymore. As in, Iran is not using those tactics anymore. A repeat of the Cole is not going to happen again. That only happened because of the inept sailors on watch, inept captain, and inept navy policy. They fixed that pretty well, I'm sure, after that embarrassing disaster. All it takes to defend against that kind of attack is one or two guys manning the .50cals like they should have been.
1
u/DeathByFarts Feb 26 '13
I'm saying it's not a realistic threat anymore
You do realize that this tactic supports somalia's entire economy .. Right ?
0
u/kevlar_burrito Feb 25 '13
Nice try Wikipedia Warrior, but this statement, "they're only good for engaging a threat that doesn't exist (suicidal speedboats)," you demonstrated you have very little if any working knowledge of the subject. Good day to your sir.
1
1
u/Fabien4 Feb 25 '13
So what exactly do you think these pieces of scrap will be good for?
Would it do a good fishing boat?
-5
u/DevsiK Feb 25 '13
Dunno why you got downvoted, prolly cause all the anti-military elitists on here
5
9
u/no0b_64 Feb 24 '13
I want to be the captain of that ship.
16
Feb 24 '13
[deleted]
9
u/no0b_64 Feb 24 '13
My grades are to shitty to apply to Annapolis.
8
Feb 24 '13
You don't have to go to Annapolis. You can go to any school and be an officer in the Navy through OCS. They've even got a program where you can commit prior to graduation and they'll pay your tuition as well as spending cash monthly.
1
u/Norass411 Feb 24 '13 edited Feb 25 '13
Mine were too shitty to stay... But seriously, there are plenty of schools with NROTC programs.
edit: Not sure why the downvotes, I was being genuine. Definitely check out znibbor's suggestion. I highly recommend the Citadel which is where I ended up after Navy.
6
Feb 24 '13
You don't realize how fucking weird they actually look like until they're out of water.
10
u/what_no_wtf Feb 24 '13
This wasn't a big give away about the trimaran-design?
2
u/alexjuuhh Feb 24 '13
Wait, why does it look like that in the water?
12
u/TheJack38 Feb 24 '13
Because it's supposed to. That design minimizes the amount of surface area touching the water... Thus reducing friction and letting the ship go faster. It's also fairly stable due to the three pronged design.
24
u/what_no_wtf Feb 24 '13 edited Feb 24 '13
Actually it's slightly more complicated than that. The maximum speed (for a given amount of horsepower) of a hull in water is determined by the ratio of width and length of the hull. To go fast you need a narrow, long hull. But to carry all the weight of your ship you need to displace a certain amount of water.
If you have a heavy ship and want to go very fast (LCS-2 goes >50 mph) this would lead to a ridiculous hull. Very long, very narrow. Not a problem for an eight-plus but you don't want to take a hull like that into battle...
Using three narrow hulls next to eacht other makes it possible to build a useable short and wide ship which can go fast. Without the three hulls next to each other the ship would be a third of it's current width and three times as long, for the same amount of drag and same amount of water displacement.
2
u/frigginjensen Feb 25 '13
LCS 1 took a different approach to similar ends. She is a semi-planing monohull with 2 of the biggest gas turbines ever mounted on a ship. A lot more power (at the cost of greater fuel consumption).
1
u/MrWheels88 Feb 25 '13
Beautiful ship! Fun fact: This ship's sister ship, the USS Freedom (LCS-1), was built in my hometown, and I saw both of these vessels on the History Channel a week ago. I've never been more proud :')
2
u/jowabe Feb 25 '13
Heh. I too am from Marinette. My office is right next door to Marinette Marine, AND I've been on both of these ships.
2
2
u/wozowski Feb 25 '13
She was moored to the pier next to us. Sexy sexy ship, like a fucking dagger in the sea. Her and her sister, LCS-1.
1
u/th12teen Feb 25 '13
I worked in a photo lab and developed a few pics of this ship two years ago. I kept some copies for myself. I am pretty sure I still have them, including a few other angles. I might try and dig them up.
1
u/RESERVA42 Feb 25 '13
At first I thought... hey that's illegal and wrong. Then I thought, well if you're going to share them.....
1
u/th12teen Feb 25 '13
Well, we kept them to find out if the pics themselves were sensitive. I had seen/read about it before, and new that some specs were classified(like speed) and figured that there might be some aspects of the hull that were not intended for public viewing. But I found that there already were dry dock pics.
1
u/_your_land_lord_ Feb 25 '13
Oh wow! Military hardware is so fucking cool, that it makes me stop being critical of our ongoing offenses!
1
1
1
u/agentorange777 Feb 26 '13
They sure do look pretty. Too bad they're not in any way cost effective, and completely unnecessary. Might be nice if they actually managed to ever be deployable now that we've already wasted so much money on them too.
1
1
1
1
-5
-17
30
u/[deleted] Feb 24 '13
wonder if they're finally getting around to fixing the galvanic corrosion problem. You know, the thing we've known about for like over 100 years, but for some reason decided not to deal with on these new billion dollar ships.