>The lethality and survivability of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is still largely unproven, 6 years after delivery of the lead ships. LCS was designed with reduced requirements as compared to other surface combatants, and the Navy has since lowered several survivability and lethality requirements and removed several design features—making the ship both less survivable in its expected threat environments and less lethal than initially planned.
http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/gao-urges-us-littoral-combat-ship-delay
>>28322734
>and the Navy has since lowered several survivability and lethality requirements and removed several design features
Yeesh. At what point does someone go "we should make the problem fit the ship" rather than make the ship fit the problem. When is that ever a good idea.
>Govt. goes 'we need a cheap, basic, mass producible corvette for the 21st century'
>LM, GD and Raytheon management collectively jizz their pants thinking about how much money they can squeeze out of the US govt.
What makes these companies think it's ok to just fail on contracts like this?
Surely the whole point of using contracts is so that the Navy can just go 'we want this, this and this', companies go 'sure, it'll cost this much' and then the shit gets delivered.
Why doesn't the Navy just start up it's own shipyards at this point?
>>28322740
It's not a really fair point, there was never a realistic way to build them to the original spec with the weapons, sensors and suitability systems of a full sized DDG or fucking cruiser.
The first idea, of a light, versatile shallow water ship able to land troops, carry choppers and drones and do jobs a destroyer or frigate is too big for was a solid one but they never nailed down exactly what it was for early on and ended up with some crazy ambitious shit and two wildly different designs.
The "let's make them baby FG" was intended to calm the fears that they were too lightly armed, but realistically cramming Aegis onto one would add too much weight and increase crew requirements too much. People bitching about the navy saying they can't survive a naval engagement are idiots. These things are supposed to be super patrol boats, not battleships.
The navy should strip them down more, clearly state what the fuck they are for and build less anyway because they never had a real plan of where the fuck they'd find the people to crew them.
>>28322771
You can only sort of blame the companies. What the fuck an LCS is supposed to be changed like 8 times during the program as politicians alternately bitched that they weren't superdreadnoughts and that they were too expensive.
>It's more survivable than auxiliaries
>They're actually fucking proud of this
>>28322791
Four
Hundred
Million
Dollar
Minesweeper
(And the minesweeper doesn't work)
Oh boy here we go again
You've got all these amazing frigates with much greater capability and lower costs coming out in the EU, how can the US so consistently fuck up an OHP replacement?
>>28322811
The LCS is shit but youre a retard if you think thats a falacy
>>28322811
These two traits are not mutually exclusive.
>>28322774
>>The first idea, of a light, versatile shallow water ship able to land troops, carry choppers and drones and do jobs a destroyer or frigate is too big for was a solid one but they never nailed down exactly what it was for early on and ended up with some crazy ambitious shit and two wildly different designs.
It took them that long to figure out that they wanted a landing ship?
>>28322859
This
>>28322844
Protectionism, it keeps all the shitty US shipbuilding companies afloat
>>28323046
>implying the Euro companies are not the same
No. Our problem is we have an oligopy in the defense industry. A lack of buying in the 90's till now, fucked the industry and made it merge into one behemoth coop.
LM does fucking everything now. Boeing makes all the cargo planes. Newport makes all the biggest ships. Raytheon makes all the missiles.
Protectionism in the defense industry is needed. We can't be at the whims of European politician's desires.
Lack of competition in the US is not needed.
All navy ships are obsolete. Nukes win each time.
Navies are just toys for nations.
Another failed system. Why can't Americans make shit anymore?
>Freedom class LCS
>no asrocs or torps
I guess the first enemy submarine they encounter will fare rather well.
>>28323095
>all navy ships are obsolete
Bit of an overstatement senpai. Subs serve a real purpose for nuclear capabilities, and carriers are useful for projecting power (mostly against developing countries). Problem is that you need everything else because of the submarines.
>>28322774
>clearly state what the fuck they are for
This
The one thing that kills projects like no other is the lack of clear demands. NOTHING is more devastating to a company than spending months or years making something only for the buyer to turn around and say that isn't what they wanted in the first place. There's no way to mitigate losses like that, no insurance to call in or way to rebrand. You might be able to repurpose the work you've already done but that's still months of more work and no guerentee that you'll get it right.
Honestly, even if the US government comes up to my door, I'd tell them to fuck off if they don't know what they want.
Impressive
These super ship make Iran quake under it turban
The small ships carrying missiles can hit these ship and it will not dent us naval capability at all.
>>28322734
Just give them to the Coast Guard already...
>>28323162
Paul K. Van Riper pls go
>>28323145
lol no you won't because they'll give you insane amounts of money to build it and you will build it. Then get stupid rich while they flail their arms in every direction over the end result.
>>28322734
They did nail down some of the requirements. This thing can supposedly float in a swimming pool so they did get the green/blue water requirements right.
They're only issue is agreeing to armaments. It's like the entire Navy is arguing over how to accessorize one M16
well the lack of lethality of the LCS isn't really an issue
The issue is the fact theres no ship to screen for them or protect them
And the modularity meme has crippled their ability to perform in their intended role of ASW and MCM
But at least they have 40kn topspeed!
>>28323087
Maybe what we actually need is people who give a shit about their job.
>>28323446
Oh wait, the people give a lot of shit about their jobs.
>>28323095
No, you're a god damn idiot.
Nukes cannot keep sea lanes open for traffic. Nukes don't carrot and stick other countries into doing a cost benefit analysis that always ends up with them relying on us. Nukes cannot project force in a region and ensure multiple engagements.
>>28323546
nukes can do all that better than the LCS m8
>>28323103
>using attack subs in the littoral zone
>>28323587
minisubs
Man, everytime you hear about some american project nowadays it´s always
>Breaking News: Project X will perform worse then expected
>X was supposed to be the new multi-role modular mcguffin, which can do everything at once
>after using up a massive amount of money, the scientists at ShillCorp have found out that´s really hard to do
>Invest $$$ now to make us fix X so it will perform somewhat acceptable
>or X is cancelled altogether and some 1960 design has it´s service life extended until 2020
>>28323592
Thats the problems of a peacetime military
Now that they are gone from afghanistan/iraq, they are throwing out all the MRAPS, going back to buying new humvees
>>28323587
Freedom is in the deep blue of the SCS right now
For some reason
>>28323556
>Moving a goalpost that far
Should a nuke ever detonate near you kind stare at it as you present your nuts to the blast and run full force towards it
My solution would be to just sell off all of the LCSs in our stock and bring back the Oliver Hazard Perry class.
>>28323649
From where? Are we just going to take them back from Australia?
>>28323649
What is wrong with the LCS tho?
https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/en/blohmvoss-class-meko(R)-csl-light-frigate.html
I wish more info on this was avaible, it appears to be pretty much the LCS except made by a company which did modular shit since 40 years. Also, they seem to have come up with that shit without needing any taxpayer dosh.
>>28323731
>not armored
>shitty guns
>useless helicopters
How does it expect to actually enter the litorals??
>>28323731
The Independence variant of the LCS is literally an australian car ferry painted grey. Same company producing it an everything
>>28323747
>Source: My ass
>>28323758
If you are operating in visual range of shore, you are going to be shot at by rockets, tanks, etc
So clearly you need some armor to deal with that, no? And guns to fire back?
>>28323162
Cool it, Ahmandinejad.
>>28323775
That's correct.
However, we still don´t know from what you can tell that those are shit on that ship.
>>28323654
It's not like Australia actually uses their navy anway.
>>28323426
0 for 3, well done
>>28322734
>Littoral Combat Ship
So, it's literally a combat ship?
>>28323592
Welcome to the modern age with deep transparency and a media starving for the next story they can sensationalize.
In reality the LCS 'issues' are largely nothing's that are hyped by those with either a complete lack of understanding of what it is or have a personal reason to see it fail. Much like the F-35.
>>28323600
MRAPs are only useful in urban COIN patrols, Humvees and the JLTV are general purpose with much more mobility. The fact that you equate them should not surprise me given this thread.
>>28323968
>Media
The article directly paraphrases the report from the Government Office of Accountability and provides the full report for review. There is no media dramatisation here shill.
>>28323992
They are generally useless and have no mobility due to being wheeled & not amphibious or airdroppable.
As if the next war won't have IED's, mines, guerrillas, ambushes, etc
Why are combat troops driving around in jeeps?
>>28323968
Fuck off, the F-35 actually works unlike the LCShit. There is nothing revolutionary about it, just a fucking sham program that doesn't care about AGD or capability.
>>28324091
I highly doubt you have actually read the GAO report.
>>28324135
So you have no idea what you are talking about, and think anything that isn't a 40+ ton tracked vehicle is useless.
>>28324218
>if I call it shit I don't have to actually make an argument
>>28324266
No reason why all of them can't be driving around in tracked APC's with good weaponry and protection.
Such as the M113 that the US army has had thousands of, but chooses not to use for some reason.
Then they cut combat forces citing a budget shortfall...
>>28322844
Those frigates can also review a larger proportion of the resources given the smaller eu navies
>>28324289
M113's have less protection than Humvee's.
>>28324289
Might have something to do with the m113 not providing good protection
>>28324330
>>28324361
Just because the US chose not to upgrade them, or even to apply existing armor upgrades that were sitting in depots, doesn't mean its literally impossible to do so.
Tracked > wheels for combat vehicles.
>>28324218
Someone's daddy works for LM.
>>28324330
M113s had the fittings to carry much greater armor. The US military just felt that protecting its troops was an unnecessary expenditure of resources.
Then they hollowed out the VA when those troops started coming home sans limbs.
>>28324765
M113s are slow and have a very limited range. Honestly, we should either scrap them or sell them.
>>28322870
>>28322859
>>28322851
There is the door you booty blasted faggots
>>28324799
Has the same range/speed as the bradley...
Slow/low range are things very easily changed anyways.
They are being replaced anyways.
>>28324218
>>28323968
>$0.25 has been deposited to your bank account
>Lockheed Martin thanks you for your service
>>28324976
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE STOP SAYING THING I DON'T WANT TO HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!
crying shill when you have no rebuttal has removed any meaning to the word
kind of like a SJW crying dats rayciss
>>28324248
Well bro, that part actually was in the report, but we should keep in mind that GAO's job is to dig shit up which means they are far from impartial and anything they say should be take with a bucket of salt. What can some paper pushers know about modern weapons projects anyway
>>28322844
>Why is it harder to build a new class of ships with confusing and contradictory requirements then to build yet another guided missile frigate?
Because they weren't intended to be frigates, genus.
>>28326267
Yeah but the problem is, nobody knew what they were actually meant to be until halfway through the project.
>>28326363
It's called modularity you dipshit
>>28322862
There is a degree of truth to this. A landing ship as a mothership to small corvettes was one of the early options, but I don't believe that it was ever seriously looked at because Big Navy decided that they wanted a larger, more survivable(!) ship capable of self-deployment.
And then they shoehorned those requirements on top of the gotta-go-fast requirement, which forced the shipyards to offer giant speedboats that sacrificed stability, range, weapons, and survivability for that speed.
At the same time, they were also sacrificing crew size to save money (heaven forbid that they cut shore billets, starting with, say, the diversity departments).
The whole thing was a perfect storm of foolishness and ego.
Shit posting slavs 2015
Years almost out putin shills, do you have anything new?
>>28323587
Sigh. Look, one of the original 3 missions for LCS was always littoral ASW against the plethora of mobile minefields that we call diesel-electrics. That threat still exists, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
>>28323663
It sacrificed everything else for high speed and small crew in a relatively large ship.
>>28327808
Gotta cover their asses extra hard while the Pak-Fa program implodes on itself.
>>28323757
No, you're thinking of the JHSV, which is an unarmed and unarmored high-speed transport based on Austal's Hawaii Superferry.
Different design, the only thing in common is the manufacturer (and, well, the speed).
>>28324218
This is largely correct. F-35, while its R&D phase stank up the room, is coming out "good enough" to get its jobs done.
LCS... isn't.
>>28327672
...and modularity failed. Each of the 3 planned modules *still* suffers from critical issues (SUW: no firepower; ASW: overweight; MIW: the main part doesn't work). Switching out modules is now set to take weeks, not hours, and at any rate, so few modules have been ordered that it is likely that most LCS will never change modules in their lifetimes, leaving them single-purpose ships.
But, other than that, they're modular!
>>28322734
The money wasted on these stupid things could have been used to modernize a real ship.
>>28322734
The sad thing is, an evolved FFG with the capability to carry offboard minesweeping gear as necessary was all that we really needed.
Throw out the 40kt (Threshold)/50kt+ (Objective) requirement, and use a conventional displacement hull that can sprint 35+ and cruise for thousands of miles like every tin can since 1940. Add a pair of Mk41s, and the sensors+fire control to employ VL-ASROC, ESSM, LRASM/JSM (whichever wins OASuW; both are being developed for Mk41), and SM-6, and enough crew berthing to operate those weapons. Leave enough empty "module" space to carry VBSS teams and RHIBs (SuW), off-board mine-sweeping gear (MIW), or tails (ASW). No need to swap out complete weapons systems, just alter the loadout in the Mk41s and call it a day--besides, that gives you a backup weapon capability, e.g., when you're mine-sweeping and a sub is detected nearby.
All of this would have been possible in a Perry replacement... but, the Navy wanted Transformation. It wanted Revolutionary, not Evolutionary. Admirals drank their own kool-aid, and declared it brandy.
Which is part of the reason why we also have a truncated, multi-$billion littoral "destroyer" that serves as a test-bed for lots of cool toys that will probably wind up in the future fleet, but only at the cost of an entire lost generation of warship design and construction.
And don't even get me started on LRLAP vs. navalized GMLRS (e.g., POLAR).
>>28322809
i could minesweep with a fishing rod, a strong magnet, and wooden 2 man sloop.
where's my god damn 400 million bucks?
>>28323101
Democratic ran administration not auditing itself to make spending more efficient?
>>28327912
No paint too so it looks like shit
But muh speed gaiz
>>28327977
>SUW: no firepower
Still pretending they are not being fitted with AShM.
>ASW: overweight
You mean existing sonars are slightly heavier than was desired, but well within limits.
>MIW: the main part doesn't work
The robot is one part of multiple elements and it looks like it's being replaced with Knifefish.
>>28328250
You would be good for one mine.
>>28329239
what makes you say that?
>>28329350
>/k/aboom
>>28329434
a magnet on a string?
>>28328250
Submit it to the Pentagon, I'm sure they'll take you seriously.
>>28328210
Sounds like a modernized Perry class. Not a terrible idea, and it deletes the pointless 57mm gun.
That said, you'd be pushing closer to the size and cost and crew requirement of a real destroyer then a light frigate, especially with the drones, helicopters, landing craft and transport ability it's supposed to have.
>>28322734
Can we at last agree the Indy is way the fuck better looking then the Freedom, along with a better name?
>>28330613
The names are both unoriginal as fuck
Gabby Giffords is apt though
>>28323046
except the LCS wasnt built here, half of them are from straya.
>>28329222
And yet, none of them have been completed and deployed yet. 6 years after construction.
The lead ships may be retired by the time the modules are finally deployed.
>>28330613
It looks like half a ship.
>>28330613
I'll agree with that, but man, she needs a coat of paint--too bad she doesn't have enough sailors to spare any for that detail.
>>28328017
They only cost 350 million each
Meanwhile the burkes are costing 2 billion, zumwalts 3.5
>>28332041
Without modules, which add something like 50%+ to the cost.
>>28332041
>6 LCShits can beat a burke
>12 LCShits can beat a zumwalt
For all the money involved you could have built a powerful greenwater navy of frigates, corvettes and diesel submarines which would have provided way more powerful assets and suddenly there could also enter the export market.
>>28332290
>greenwater
What does the US look like, china? It needs ocean going legs.
>Predecessor built with a SAM system
Hey lets not give it an area SAM
>Predecessor built with torpedoes
Hey lets not give it torpedoes
>Predecessor built with a 76mm main gun
57mm popgun is fine
>>28332301
Look up what Littoral means
>>28332303
>Directly comparing the LCS to the OHP.
Why do people keep doing this. The LCS is not meant to be a direct replacment and doesn't even fulfill the same roles as the OHP.
>>28332389
Gee I guess it'd be because the US Navy said the LCS would take over from the OHP.
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140726/NEWS/307260034/Retiring-frigates-may-leave-some-missions-unfilled
>>28332389
>doesn't even fulfill the same roles as the OHP
LCS has three roles. SUW, MCM and ASW.
OHP covers SUW w/ the Melara, Phalanx and MK38s.
OHP covers MCM with the RMMV which /any/ large vessel can carry.
OHP covers ASW with Two LAMPS III SH-60s and MK50 torpedos.
Australian versions of the OHP also bring to the table AA and AShM with w/ ESSM, Standards and Harpoons.
>>28332404
>>28332441
OHPs were built as fleet/convoy escorts in the event a conflict with the Soviet Navy went hot.
LCSes are meant to patrol shallow waters to defeat asymmetric threats like small boats, submarines, and mines.
>>28332450
>OHPs were built as fleet/convoy escorts in the event a conflict with the Soviet Navy went hot.
I also have to add that this role was largely taken over by the Burkes.
>>28322771
>What makes these companies think it's ok to just fail on contracts like this?
A lack of competition and the fact that they always get away with it because military spending is a sacred cow.
>>28332467
Problem is that there's not much the contractor can do if the client doesn't have a clear idea of what it wants. The armed forces has always had the bad tendency of constantly changing program requirements in the middle of the R&D process.
>>28332480
The problem with the navy and all the other branches is they need "gamechangers" (you can read this shit in every fucking PR statement) to get so much tax money as possible.
>Our new shit is so good it will make everything else obsolete yadayada.
>>28329350
>magnet
>>28332301
Also needs greenwater. Granted, it doesn't have the people to crew a large number of corvettes and diesel subs that would put a big strain on sealift command to keep them tended.
Reasonably priced shallow draft frigates made to work in littoral zones is a good idea. The US dose have a lot of area SAM and guided missile assets, they don't really need more.. but honestly, putting Ageis and VLS systems, already fully mature and effective ASW and area air defense options.
>>28332493
That is a problem. Honestly, what they needed was a modernized improvement to the OHP with a focus on shallow water operations. Nobody complained that the OHP weren't armored enough.
>>28332738
the LCS _is_ reasonably priced
They just need to add more VLS to it.
And instead of having a small helicopter landing pad for the back, they need a ship long runway for operating fixed wing UAV's.
They apparently want to use these things as mini-amphibious assault ships too.
The hilarity is, if ANY other country was making the LCS, then it'd be all Americans on the board unified in laughing at how shit it was.
But because it's American, you get this boundless ass covering going on to try and claim it's some sort of massive success.
>>28332904
whats wrong with the LCS? What makes it "shit" ?
>>28332913
Gee, it's almost like you didn't OPs fucking article
>>28332913
My humble opinion is it doesn't carry enough whoop-ass.
>>28332913
Massively overpriced OPVs with "multimission" pie in the sky ideas that just haven't surfaced yet and are costing even MORE money.
We can talk "But this bit kinda works" all we want. But the fact is they are unbelievably overpriced for what they do.
>>28333209
But thats not an issue with the LCS per say
That's an issue with the idea of making "mission modules" that can magically fit in every ship, and be swapped out whenever you want.
>Independence variant in service for 5 years now
>Not a single deployment
Epic
Man the DoD and Kremlin are really going at it these days
>>28323145
when you jump through all the fucking hoops it takes to do business with the federal government, suddenly an $800 toilet seat no longer seems out-of-line.
>>28330613
is that a troll post? ind class is butt fucking ugly, and you wait - the aluminum will corrode to shit in the salt water. the freedom class will last much longer and be a more durable ship.
also, i have a bias because i live on the great lakes so i dig marinette marine and bay shipbuilding.
>>28333209
you sound like you come from a country that receives economic aid from america.
america can afford to spend the money. hell, america can afford to write the whole thing off. OH GNOES A BILLION DOLLARY DOOs
seventeen trillion dollar annual gdp and you guys bitch about a billion dollars here and there. thats NOTHING.
>>28327808
>>28327883
>>28333500
What makes you think the vatnik is behind this thread?
>>28333601
>frivolously wasting finite money doesn't matter because we're merca :^)
>crippling the military by spending decades with failed procurement programs is a-ok :)
I work onboard a T-EPF (JHSV).
>>28331201
The point of no paint is weight, not manpower. If cost was no factor, they could at least give the surface a uniform finish (sanding).
>>28332480
That's a two way street, one the contact gets locked it it becomes almost impossible to change anything until after the ship is delivered, ni matter how retarded a layout or system proves to be within the first months of operation. Thus, like our class, you go in for a major overhaul while the ship is essentially brand new.
>>28331101
They're not built in Australia. LCS 2 class and JHSVs are built adjacent to each other in Mobile, Alabama.
In fact I recently heard that Austal screwed up and put a piece of one class in the way of the other, so work was delayed until they finished adding that piece to the other ship.
>>28333540
Don't need to worry about corrosion as much as you might think. Ever seen a pontoon boat that failed because it oxidized away?
All in all, I believe that the government is getting hosed; though it may be largely their own fault. SUPSHIP and NAVSEA are pretty much in bed with the builders. Shit gets accepted and signed off that really shouldn't. If something doesn't pass, even if it's due to a systemic problem, Austal will do the bare minimum to achieve a pass and then move on. Shit like X system fails a test three times, achieves a pass on the fourth: PASS.
>>28333601
I direly hope you are not in any position of fiscal responsibility.
>>28333724
His other point about durability still stands though.
Independence's aluminium hull is completely untested against fire and underwater explosions and the Navy has no plans to test these areas in a timely manner. Freedom's steel hull will have the better longevity and survivability of the two variants.
>>28333806
I completely agree with that, but it won't just waste away is my point.
>>28333793
17,000,000,000,000 vs 15,000,000,000
the entire $15 billion program is less than a thousandth of our annual gdp.
its obvious all those zeros confuse you
>>28333894
Bump for waste, fraud, and abuse.
>>28332642
How do they work
>>28333894
>The US military's budget is the entire country's GDP
Yup. REALLY hope you don't have any sway in finance.
>>28323610
>Trying to muscle in on China's navy with undergunned frigates
RIP Freedom
