good concept, bad implementation OR bad concept?
I personally think it is a great idea.
I don't get the point of the LCS. The piece of shit costs $400 mil. Why would anyone get this? The Izumo-class is just $1.2 bil, and carries 30 helos.
>>29283899
It fills a need for the USN that other navies are too small to have to deal with.
I don't get the point of the Izumo. The piece of shit costs $1.2 bil. Why would anyone get this? The Ford-class is just $10.4 bil, and carries 75 fixed wing aircraft.
>>29284041
ASW
>>29284006
Underrated post.
I never really thought of it that way before.
>>29284006
That's kinda true.
A great way to transfer $360 mil. from the tax payers to the M-I complex. A brilliant concept effectively executed.
>>29284041
ASW. Japan itself is a giant fucking carrier with fixed-wing aviation that can project force all over the region. What it really needs more of is ASW pickets. Thus the Izumo
>>29284117
If they weren't spending the money on the LCS they'd be spending it on a different part of the military.
>>29284006
Like what?
>>29284148
Good. They should do that.
>>29284150
The LCS is designed to combats of speed boats in case some terror group would every try to take out a carrier by spamming it with small boats. It also can act as a minesweeper and a sub-hunter. I'm not sure how it all works but it seems like a solid idea to round out the basic weakness of the fleet.
>>29284150
UCAVs
AAVs
JSOW-ERs
6th-Gen multiroles
More Zumwalts
Wutup?
>>29284191
>The LCS is designed to combats of speed boats in case some terror group would every try to take out a carrier by spamming it with small boats.
Yeah a Litoral Combat Ship is definitely designed to escort a CSG you must be some kind of a navy expert.
>The concept behind the littoral combat ship, as described by former Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England, is to "create a small, fast, maneuverable and relatively inexpensive member of the DD(X) family of ships."
>relatively inexpensive
What a joke
>>29284191
That makes a good bit of sense, and with sea mines being one of our bigger threats and every war this century being against terrorism it certainly fills a role. Never quite thought about it like that.
>>29284248
You do realize minesweepers have been around for ages and they didn't use to cost 1/4 of a capital ship?
>>29284294
Still effective for intercepting sandniggers with speed boats.
Old LCS is best LCS
>>29284294
You realize that an LCS isn't a simple minesweeper?
The USN has to tack the capability on to another ship because it can't convince Congress to fork over the money for something as unglamorous and 'low priority' as minesweeping.
>>29284411
>You realize that an LCS isn't a simple minesweeper?
Yeah, it's a $360 mil. minesweeper.
>>29284411
>The USN has to tack the capability on to another ship because it can't convince Congress to fork over the money for something as unglamorous and 'low priority' as minesweeping.
That must be why minesweepers never existed in the USN before the LCS, right? Because the Congress overruled them for not being glamorous.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mine_warfare_vessels_of_the_United_States_Navy
>>29284433
Look at your link and see how many minesweepers the USN currently has but how many it used to have.
>>29284623
And you think the reason for that is because Congress won't pay for anything that's not glorious? Are you retarded, or just 8 years old?
>>29283899
Good as a mine sweeper/corvette. Horrible as a frigate.
>>29284681
>thread/
>>29284681
>Good as a mine sweeper/corvette. Horrible as a frigate.
I guess the USN is really lucky it's not trying to be a frigate, then. They really dodged a bullet, there! It's almost like they planned it that way.
>>29284818
What's replacing the Perrys then? USN can't just spam more Burkes to replace them
>>29284294
The LCS costs 1/40 of a capital ship...
>>29284409
Bathurst class is best LCS
>>29284638
Are you? Or is it autism, you are very fixated on an irrelevant comment.
All the while not even attempting to explain why the USN has a hard time funding MCM.
>>29284833
You don't have to be a Frigate to replace the OHP's role in the USN.
And this is setting aside that LCS will be more heavily armed than they were once the box launchers are mounted this year.
>>29284833
> What's replacing the Perrys then? USN can't just spam more Burkes to replace them
Actually, it can.
More to the point, the Perry's high-end role is transferred to the Burke (which they very much are spamming). And its low-end role is transferred to the LCS.
Problem solved.
(There's also an LCS-based new frigate type on the way, to close whatever gap remains.)
Haha
Chinese LCS is best LCS
>>29284150
Being a cheap ship with enough tonnage to put various supporting equipment in it, including aviation assets. Also being fast enough to work outside the CSG and be able to run back to cover when needed.
>>29284970
>(There's also an LCS-based new frigate type on the way, to close whatever gap remains.)
On that topic, the Navy is putting both the ASW and SuW modules on the frigate at the same time.
>>29285037
Yeah, and they're putting the ASW, SuW, AD, and Land Attack modules on the destroyer at the same time. Guess those frigates are a waste of time, huh?
>>29285068
It's a cost/benefit thing. The Navy at this stage just needs more hulls with decent capability in one or two areas. They already have all the Burkes they need.
>>29284409
OHP is cute! CUTE!
>>29285129
Says... ?
>>29285172
The Navy. That's why the LCS is a thing. If they just wanted to throw money at the MIC they'd be making more Zumwalts or Burkes. You could try watching the SNA Symposium videos. And reading more.
>>29283899
It's a fucking terrible idea. There's no reason you need to go 40+ knots and that design criteria has rippled down into causing nearly every problem (except not getting the ASW and mine packages working, that's just sheer incompetence). The compromises it takes to go from a 35 to 45 knot ship is not at all worth it.
>>29285200
Then you and I agree. The Burke for all the burkey stuff, and the LCS for (almost) everything else.
>>29283899
I machined parts for this thing, and with the exception of a faggot few, there's not many people out there who have much faith in its practical use. They're basically just going through the motions since the contracts have been awarded.
All this other sweatervest academic ragchewing ITT is speculation or third party misconceptions.
>Every single Lockheed and Austral export variant included VLS cells
>Both Lockheed and Austral SSC proposals included VLS cells
>Nah we're good
But hey now they're going to get NSM*, a missile inferior in all respects to whatever permanent OASuW solution is chosen.
*Unless Boeing pulls off some epic bribery for them to accept their latest Harpoon.
>>29285455
>I machined parts for this thing
Why the fuck would a components machinist know anything about the requirements or capabilities of the type? Do they teach naval strategy and procurement in machinist trade school now?
>>29285554
It's a funny thing, when you do business with someone, they generally share what they're looking for. The US Government and the private military manufacturing firms (boeing, lockheed, sikorsky, etc) don't just shit a contract at you with tolerances and specs with a check stapled to the front.
Anyways, why the fuck would some faggot on 4chan know anything about the LCS other than what you got from your google searches? I actually spoke with the mother fuckers building, buying, and using this thing. Did you?
>>29285523
Do you have a citation that they are getting NSM? Harpoons as placeholders for image related is more likely.
>>29285554
I suspect he works for Nintendo.
>>29285662
>It's a funny thing, when you do business with someone, they generally share what they're looking for. The US Government and the private military manufacturing firms (boeing, lockheed, sikorsky, etc) don't just shit a contract at you with tolerances and specs with a check stapled to the front.
They also do not give a machinist the level of insight you are claiming.
>>29284681
Lousy as a minesweeper too. The RMS is broke. See http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/08/30/official-minehunting-system-shows-signs-improvement/71332662/
>>29283980
true, but when you add the cost of 30 helos, it gets even more expensive.
>>29283899
It sounds like an MCDV except not already 20 years old when they were built, which is to say, it sounds bad.
>>29284191
>*could act as a minesweeper, if it had a module to do that
as a counterpoint, if they build an interstellar flight module for it, it could be a space ship, but that module isn't working yet, either.
>>29285792
Its like shooting fish in a barrel.
>>29283899
Why don't they just give the LCS to the coast guard where it belongs
>>29285740
Unfortunately for your argument, I'm not a machinist. I can see why you would be lead to that conclusion, but saying you machined parts for a project can include lots of things, especially when you start using highly sophisticated machines. Machines that require engineers to operate. And people like me on the front end to talk to the client about expectations, call outs, and performance specifications.
You build a relationship with most of these clients over years since their vendor management, senior buyers, and chief engineers don't change much. You become friends on a professional level. You get to talk to them about what they need and what the purpose is, especially since they defer to your specialized knowledge on specific things.
You still have not qualified your opinion. Do you munch on snacks all day and beat off to ships? If you were at all involved in American manufacturing with any company listed on the United States Munitions List, you would know that nobody is jumping up and down spontaneously ejaculating for the LCS. Everyone who works in this business knows better.
>>29285821
Nice launch, when will it be in the mission package?
>>29285796
> adds 30 helos, gets even more effective
>>29285875
Lockheed employee here. Passing this up the chain to management. I'm sure they'll get a great chuckle.
>>29285992
>inb4 NO! MY DAD IS THE ONLY ONE WHO WORKS AT NINTENDO!
>>29283899
Good concept, bad implementation, and now its the first warship in history that's in Early Access
>>29283899
it's pretty shitty since it's main armament against Fast Attack Craft was canceled XM-501 to be replaced with the Hellfire Longbow which has a max range of like 6KM
>>29285693
They haven't chosen which they're going to use.
>>29285875
>I am full of shit and you called me on it
Glad that got cleared up.
>>29283899
>mission package
What does this mean?
>>29285900
>Prender said 11-meter unmanned surface boat will be built in Textron’s Slidell, La., shipyard, the command and control system and minesweeping payload will be built in the Hunt Valley, Md., facility, and the two will be integrated in Louisiana. CUSV will go through land-based and then water-based testing in mid-2016, and the first vehicle should deliver in late 2016 or early 2017.
>>29286439
Modules.
If you need to hunt a sub you get the asuw package.
If you need to hunt ships you get the surface package.
This means you need to house the packages on every port you visit. For example, Singapore and Philippines. If there are 2 LCS using the ports you need modules on the ready on both ports and must have maintenance personnel to make sure the packages are combat ready. Which makes it more expensive than say a Buyan-M corvette that only needs to change missiles.
>>29286586
Not really how it's going to work. They're still working it out, actually, now that they have some physical experience with the thing. Just launched a study on the topic.
>>29286586
>Which makes it more expensive than say a Buyan-M corvette that only needs to change missiles.
It has practically zero ASW capability, which is one of the LCS' primary missions. No towed array, no aviation.
Also no mine warfare capability, which is pretty much the other half of the LCS' main mission set.
You are comparing two ship systems designed for COMPLETELY different roles.
>>29286724
>It has practically zero ASW capability, which is one of the LCS' primary missions. No towed array, no aviation.
>Also no mine warfare capability, which is pretty much the other half of the LCS' main mission set.
wew lad
>>29287031
I'm sorry if facts make you nervous, friend.
>>29286586
But here is what confuses me.
Whenever I try to read about this thing, it says that the 30mm autocannons are part of the surface warfare package. Does that mean the ship doesn't come with guns attached?
>>29287159
>Does that mean the ship doesn't come with guns attached?
It has a Mk 110 57 mm gun, 400 rounds in turret and two ready service magazines with 240 rounds each, in all variants. That's the deck gun. The Bushmasters are just for the SUW package.
>>29287142
>facts
wew lad, just wew
>>29287375
So you're saying that the Buyan has a towed sonar array, aviation facilities and mine warfare capability? Wow, you better tell the Russians. They'll be pleased as punch and ask you where it all is!
>>29287386
>Buyan
I miss one word and I make an ass of myself
>>29284124
I like your example of why Nippon focuses so much on ASW. Gonna steal it for future discussions, thanks
They took this modularity meme too far
Then they bought TWO ships, one weight limited, one space limited, which fucked everything up
All the intended equipment eventually got cancelled, now they are using cheaper not as good stuff.
>>29287416
Happens to the best of us.
>>29285662
It's alright bro, I am an officer on JHSVs (T-EPFs), and I know this to be true. No need trying to argue with the brain trust here. Funny, they're not even being paid to shill, unlike the admirals and sailors who are supposed to actually be doing quality control, who look forward to comfy jobs at Austal / Lockheed.
>>29285992
I bet Austal gets a chuckle every time they come out on a $100,00 service call for something they've already """fixed""" twice.
>>29283899
>good concept, bad implementation OR bad concept?
Bad concept and worse implementation.
its only pork when its not your district.
marinette marine knows how to build a boat.
>>29288302
Only "Bad" part of it, was naming it a LITORAL COMBAT SHIP
when it won't go into the litorals and isn't suitable for combat.
>>29289111
This.
It's so close to being awesome, and yet so far.
What they really needed was a Tiny Kiev: Deck guns and missiles for surface combat and land attack, and aviation facilities for rotary wing UAVs. A well deck for USVs and towed arrays.
Something that could serve as a littoral picket not by being fast liek corvette, but by carrying an array of light, fast drones to do the high speed prosecutions and long range sweeps.
A couple seahawks, a bunch of pic related, on a Sea Control Ship, would be awesome.
>>29289395
tilt rotor is a bad meme
What they needed to do was make a "Litoral Control Ship", which had a flight deck, a catapult, and produce manned/unmanned CATOVL aircraft for it.
>>29284057
>>29284124
>not getting sarcasm
>>29286586
Sorry, what about crew? Does it swap crews along with modules? Or it will have all types of specialist crewmembers always on board?
>>29289695
Theres like 20 crew needed for each module, which will need to be swapped
which is why in practice they won't actually be doing much swapping
>>29289554
>tilt rotor is a bad meme
I'm okay with this.
>What they needed to do was make a "Litoral Control Ship", which had a flight deck, a catapult, and produce manned/unmanned CATOVL aircraft for it.
I'm okay with this too.
>>29289395
>>29289554
>>29290258
Imagine this, but burger instead of potato.
>>29289695
They can fly commercial jet business class from des moines.
>>29284191
>It also can act as a minesweeper and a sub-hunter
Most corvettes and frigates can do this to. And all of them has at least one medium calibre gun so they will probably just as good at taking out speed boats.
>>29290313
corvettes and frigates don't hold 2 choppers
>>29292649
F125-class will.
![Niedersachsen_F208[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4p2DzjF.jpg "Niedersachsen_F208[1].jpg")
>>29292649
And the F208 class currently does.
>>29292689
*F122
>>29292689
>>29292673
>Costs triple the LCS
>4 times the crew
>26kns max LOL
![FS_Montcalm_1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/IpXiGzC.jpg "FS_Montcalm_1[1].jpg")
>>29292649
So do the Georges Leygues-class.
>>29292707
>40 knot to sweep mines
>>29292711
>Georges Leygues-class
DESTROYER designed in the late 60's displacing 1,000 more tons than a Freedom class and double the crew and without anywhere near the sensor complexity/volume/weight of a modern ship or mine warfare capabilities.
>>29292689
No towed sonar, almost double the crew, no mine warfare, and roughly equivalent armament to the LCS.
>>29292791
>1,000 more tons than a Freedom class
Oh no a whole 1000 more tons. What a behemoth.
>>29292799
lol just 25% bigger why you hatin bro
