>Latest 2 procured ships will cost $562 million EACH not including mission packages
>Only 40 ships ordered, down from 52
>Navy has not yet demonstrated that LCS will achieve its survivability requirements, and does not plan to complete survivability assessments until 2018
>Critical MCM systems are not reliable
>Minehunting capabilities are limited in other-than-benign environmental conditions
>The fleet is not equipped to maintain the ship or the MCM systems
Excerpt 1
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.
Excerpt 2
DOT&E does not expect either LCS variant to be survivable in high-intensity combat because the design requirements accept the risk that the crew would have to abandon ship under circumstances that would not require such action on other surface combatants. Although the ships incorporate capabilities to reduce their susceptibility to attack, previous testing of analogous capabilities demonstrates it cannot be assumed LCS will not be hit in high-intensity combat.
Excerpt 3
The current LCS seaframes do not have sufficient separation and redundancy in theirvital systems to recover damaged capability. Because the SSC design is not substantially different from the LCS Flight 0+ baseline and will not add much more redundancy or greater separation of critical equipment or additional compartmentation, it will likely be less survivable than the Navy’s previous frigate class.
http://news.usni.org/2016/03/23/document-report-to-congress-on-littoral-combat-shipfrigate-program
Hard to understand why producing empty ships costs so much in US ship yards
Maybe they are just paying extra to keep shipyards open
>>29384983
>562 million EACH not including mission packages
Where were you when US navy corvettes became more expensive than other countries guided missile frigates?
>>29384983
couldn't you just blow a hole in one of the outer hull things and totally assfuck that thing like those terrorists on a fishing boat did to that destroyer?
>>29384983
JUST
>>29384983
>Watch me selectively post excerpts from a 55 page report that line up with my personal narrative on the LCS.
It's like the F-35 GAO report threads all over again.
>inb4 30 posts claiming "BUT IT HAPPENED IN THE PAST TO OTHER SHIPS SO IT IS OKAY NOW!!!"
>>29385088
How much you want to bet it's massively superior to those missile boats?
>>29385157
>let me post facts that align with my views
ftfy
>>29385157
>Watch me try and deny hard evidence because it doesn't line up with my personal narrative on the LCS
lmao
>>29385184
Tree fiddy
Also, considering the
>economies of scale
meme I keep hearing it should be better and cheaper
>>29385207
Can you imagine how expensive it would be if they didn't buy 40? It's already being beaten in price by ships with procurements of 4.
>>29384983
>lockheed martin in charge of anything
>>29384983
>and the Navy has since lowered several survivability and lethality requirements
Why is this allowed?
>>29385194
>>29385188
>let me post snippets that mean something completely else when put into context of the report
It really is just like the F-35 GAO threads.
>>29385088
A La Fayette cost $466 million in the early 1992.
>The Navy’s proposed FY2017 budget requests $1,125.6 million for the procurement of the 27th and 28th LCSs, or an average of $562.8 million for each ship. The three LCSs procured in FY2016 were funded at an average cost of $482.0 million. The increase in average cost from $482.0 million in FY2016 to $562.8 million is likely due in large part to the reduction in procurement quantity from three ships in FY2016 to two ships in FY2017.
slash and whine
l
a
s
h
a
n
d
w
h
i
n
e
Can't wait for the military industrial complex to bankrupt America. Soviet Union breakup all over again.
>>29386106
Gonna take a long time with spending at 3% of our GDP.
ITT: Cutting edge ship design always has and always will be hard.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/01/why-choose-the-littoral-combat-ship-because-it-is-the-best-option/
Australia here, can we have one? Please.
>>29386274
>Implying we'd ever buy ships not made in Spain
LCS was mistake
Aegis was right
ITT: Half a billion dollar minesweepers shills
>>29387612
Only way LCS can "minesweep" for now is if just sails in the mined area and eats those mines
>>29387612
Sadly, it can't because it lacks the module.
How could it happen that a cheap and proven Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates get replaced by overpriced LCS shit?
Why was a more capable but cheaper European style frigate not the better option?
>>29388533
LM provides much better bribes to politicians making the decisions on what ship to buy next
>>29386130
Vatniks can't math
>>29385184
except it that can't be; maybe it can make parity, but chances are that it would flop.
>>29388533
>Why was a more capable but cheaper European style frigate not the better option?
Gotta feed that MIC
>>29388564
LM didn't write the requirements for the LCS. They just gave the Navy what they asked for.
>>29384983
I hope they end up picking the Independence-class. It's a more innovative design. Also, future LCS are going to have more guns on them, so you can stop whining about that.
American corvette costs as much as 2 Chinese frigates
>Muh muh 40 knots
>>29388849
>57mm
It's garbage and they're not replacing it
>>29388987
You know, I can't really defend that, but I'm sure they have their reasons. I think that 76mm OTO Melara would have been better.
>>29388890
And if there ever were an escalation, Chinese production would ramp up so fast and hard... scary to think about actually.
>>29384983
A modest proposal.
>>29389055
and the low quality would sink even further on thos ChiCom ships because every yard manager would be under threat of death if he didn't meet the increased production schedule
>>29389159
>and the low quality would sink even further on thos ChiCom ships
What do you know of their quality?
>>29389134
This would be better
>>29389174
Take a look at their ships outside of a propaganda shot, once...
>>29384983
its good to see the USAF isnt the only service just shitting money down the toilet.
>at least us airmen have a chance to name it.
>My suggestion was 'Money Pit"
>>29388533
>Perrys
>Cheap
Anon, those things cost $700 million brand new in 2016 dollars. And that's in their original 70s configuration.
>>29389228
>picking on LRSB
>one of the Air Force projects that's actually slated to be on schedule and under budget.
>>29388890
America has real serious problems with ship costs, probably comes from the fact they need to keep shipyards open & that they don't have a private ship building industry to promote cost cutting measures.
I don't know anything about the navy, but what exactly are these things designed to do?
Going solely off the photo
>One cannon on the bow of the ship, looks like a smallish calibre (hopefully larger than 45mm)
>One CIWS on the rear of the tower
>Couple of assault boats (this is being generous and assuming they aren't lifeboats)
>Maybe, POSSIBLY, room to launch missiles or tomahawks from those doors between the cannon and the tower
>Storage for one or two helicopters, seems like these are the only things that are actually going to be doing any warfare activities
>>29389399
>slated to be on schedule and under budget.
just like the f22 and f35.
okay
>>29389442
Supposed to be replacing shitty frigates & mine sweepers, adding in some anti-sub capabilities.
Only gonna take a crew of 50 or 60
Relatively cheap
Fastest warship ever built
>>29389468
>neither of them were
get gud anon
>>29389471
>Relatively cheap
Relative to what? Supercarriers?
>>29389442
To be fair, the independence-class has been upgraded since that photo was taken (SeaRAM replaces Phalanx) and they're due for another upgrade this year. (Adding hell-fire missiles)
Eventually they're going to look like this:
>>29389134
Goalkeeper would take up large amounts of deck space underneath it, because the system you see above deck is the tip of the iceberg.
It does not need a second 76mm, which would do the same thing as the goalkeeper in terms of filling underdeck space.
Harpoon launchers would be better placed up front, not up on top of the ship, and are relatively unimportant to its intended role. Its primary method of deploying AShMs would be helicopters in emergency.
>>29389487
An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer cost around $1.8 Billion per ship. If an LCS costs around $500 million per ship, then that's significantly cheaper.
>>29389504
Id rather spend the 1.8 billion, Burke's are far better.
>>29389522
But the Naval doesn't want a fleet composed of nothing but destroyers. Having smaller ships that can handle the "odd-jobs" is not a bad idea.
>>29389504
$500 mil without the modules. And at far less capabilities. Wow, it's such a bargain.
>>29389551
Actually we kinda do, it would be better to use an DDG to do those odd jobs than a floating target like the LCS, hence the Navy is buying more Burke's.
>>29389562
Moving the goal posts. We've gone from arguing that the LCS is comparable to a Super-Carrier to complaining that it costs less than 1/3 as much as a destroyer.
The LCS is God's gift to mankind, only those who have ulterior motive say that it is undeserving of the money spent on it. China nor Russia does not have the capabilities to field such advanced warships that is why they are sending shills to deter the public from fully supporting such a magnificent program. Those who make the ships should be proud of such undertaking.
>>29388511
>>29388037
>guise the rmmv breaks alot so the LCS has no ability to minesweep
Look at these shills and laugh.
>>29388655
>more capable
>cheaper
>euro frigate
pick one
>>29389631
Look at what Dutch modular frigates cost and get back to me
>>29389638
816 million dollars per ship?
>>29389551
You could just build cheaper burkes with less equipment & crew needs.
Building small ships just for the sake of having small ships is pointless.
>>29389442
>>29389490
Anons, OP's picture is a SeaRAM.
I think you are confusing a SeaRAM with a Mk49 launcher.
>>29389638
Those things are probably pieces of shit
>>29389674
This seemingly common complete inability to comprehend any modern warship that is not a Burke/Tico clone is fascinating.
None of the intended roles of the LCS require Mk41 VLS cells.
>>29389658
Sorry, that should have been Danish ships
>>29389685
Gee what a fine argument you have
>>29389701
>None of the intended roles of the LCS require Mk41 VLS cells.
Please.
>>29389579
>it would be better to use an DDG to do those odd jobs
No, it wouldn't.
If the USN was a tiny Euro navy then you would have an argument.
>>29389701
You mean none of the roles that the LCS can now only do require a VLS
Convenient, huh
>>29389631
US ship building is so inefficient it wouldn't be alive if it weren't for the protectionism
>>29389711
Do you have an actual rebuttal besides a reaction image?
This is where you say ASROC despite its pitiful range compared to helicopter AWS.
>>29389725
>Euro ship built to commercial standards
>Murrican ship built to military standards
Guise, Amerifat shipbuilding is so expensive an inefficient!
>>29389701
>Oh god our new ship is shit
>Quick say it's only intended to float on water
>LOCKHEED MARTIN PRESS RELEASE: LCS MOST CAPABLE SHIP EVER MADE BY MAN
>>29389675
Thank you for clearing that up, actually.
>>29389674
>You could just build cheaper burkes with less equipment & crew needs
But why do that when we already have the LCS?
The Burkes is going to be the number 1 "heavy hitter" for the US fleet for a long time. But there is nothing wrong with having a smaller, comparatively cheaper class of warship that can handle the "odd-jobs" that don't require a full-fledged destroyer.
>>29389753
>Oh god I have no argument.
>Quick, scream shill so I can pretend I have a moral high ground!
>>29389761
>But there is nothing wrong with having a smaller, comparatively cheaper class of warship that can handle the "odd-jobs" that don't require a full-fledged destroyer.
There is something wrong when that smaller warship costs much more than it should.
>>29389723
They don't have room or weight for VLS if they want it to keep its speed
The speed might be necessary for running down speed boats
>>29389781
Except it doesn't.
>>29389753
>Ship doesn't need MK41 cells
>So it doesn't have them
Literally what is the problem?
>>29389781
>There is something wrong when that smaller warship costs much more than it should.
How much should it cost then buckaroo?
>>29389723
>Convenient, huh
More like an intentional design decision, actually.
>>29389730
So it has SeaRAM, but "No requirement" for RIM-162 ESSM or RIM-7?
Is ASROC's "pitiful" range an issue when the sonar is a towed array right next to the ship?
>>29388987
>>29389014
>57mm Mk110 RoF
220 rounds per minute
>76mm OTO Melara Rof
120 rounds per minute
When the dual purpose role is considered.
>>29389820
Towed sonar and dipping sonar has a range far exceeding any ASROC.
And LCS are not an air defense frigates, why is that hard to comprehend?
>>29389820
>So it has SeaRAM, but "No requirement" for RIM-162 ESSM or RIM-7?
Pretty much. I don't see the contradiction.
>>29389795
>How much should it cost then buckaroo?
Let's start with this as the baseline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Huitfeldt-class_frigate
Then reduce the price by half since the USN can order more than 3 and will need half the capabilities of the Danish frigate. That's about $160 mil per boat.
>>29389134
I have a better suggestion.
Put the Navy's most modular weapon (Mk 41) on the "modular" ship.
Add software, consoles, and personnel to use ESSM/ASROC/LRASM.
>>29389888
Those frigates are basically the best example of a modular warship.
Why not just convert a container ship to carry ~10 helicopters? Inb4 muh 40 knots.
>>29389701
ASW: ASROC
SUW: LRASM
Self-defense: ESSM
Are you even trying?
>>29389820
SeaRAM is a CIWS.
>>29389872
What do you do when the helo is down and you just picked up a contact 20KY out?
>>29390054
run away because you have 20 knots on anything else.
>>29389997
>ASW: ASROC
Not a replacement for helicopter ASW.
>SUW: LRASM
Does not require VLS, and just like Harpoon will likely not be procured in VLS format.
>Self-defense: ESSM
SeaRAM.
The real question is are you even trying?
>>29389888
Basing your design off of an already existing hull and building it on already mature technology tends to drive the price down.
>>29390054
>have towed array deployed
>not have a helicopter airborne
Your scenario does not stand.
>>29389888
To be fair, the Independence-class can reach over 10 knots higher than that ship.
>>29389888
Note that your prices are for bare ships without armament and radars etc.
Doing that to an LCS drops the price from the $560mil in the OP to ~$360 mil.
>>29390138
It also lacks a towed array.
>>29390149
Which is really odd since the Freedom class has it.
>>29390139
It said without armament
It doesn't say without radar
>>29390139
>Doing that to an LCS drops the price from the $560mil in the OP to ~$360 mil.
I seriously doubt that a 57mm and a RAM cost three hundred million dollars.
>>29390167
I meant the Iver lacked one.
>>29390119
That sounds like a good idea. Why doesn't the US do that for its not-frigate?
>>29390229
Because the US likes innovation?
>>29390176
Your inability to do basic math isn't persuasive.
>>29390229
Because the USN can't just settle for protecting their own regional waters. They have to send ships to all corners of the globe and some of those corners have navies that can actually conceivably fight back. It doesn't make sense not to build ships that are a step up from theirs.
>>29390229
Which is why they're basing the SSC off of the LCS hull.
>>29390176
I like how I specified more than just weaponry, it's almost like you are unable to get off that intellectually dishonest narrative that LCS are underarmed.
>>29390276
Basic math? On those costs that exist in your head? Fuck off.
>>29390303
You're lying about the radars being modular and not included in the price. That's why it was discounted.
>>29390306
>562 - 360 = ~ 300
You guys need to understand the cost of ship building includes worker benefits, pensions, and the most costly component health care insurance. The cost is not just raw materials, and USA can't compete with countries that don't have a functioning Department of Labor. Workers rights, unions etc.
Tldr; cost of construction overhead includes labor which can be astronomical.
