Alright bros, how do we fix this?
>>29332344
$40 billion taxpayer gibmedats will get you a new radar, some different paint, an engine and a $400,000 per hour operating cost.
You cannot beat this deal. If you don't agree, you hate America.
You can't fix a fundamentally flawed design.
>>29332375
Lel
>>29332344
One ship design only.
>>29332344
What's wrong with it exactly? Besides the inherently heavy price tag.
>>29332429
It has only marginally better armament than a Cost Guard Cutter.
You make smaller, more specialized ships instead of one big "multirole" mess.
>>29333201
>Fitted with RBS-15s
literally more firepower than the LCS at a 10th of the tonnage
It should have just used the STANFLEX modules, then it'd be functional from the go rather than Lockheed and GD trying to make their own proprietary systems.
>>29333279
STANFLEX probably sucks dick
>>29334207
>In service
>Inexpensive
>Uses proven systems
Duuuuuh
>>29334218
the LCS is in service and inexpensive
and it'll be proven systems in a few years
>>29332429
>Besides the inherently heavy price tag.
$360 mil per ship is on the cheap end.
>>29332968
A coast guard cutter does not have box AShM launchers (soon.jpg), a towed sonar array or minesweeping equipment.
>>29332344
It seems like it has already been fixed. The Navy just needs to switch their orders to a different version.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/documents/SCS_Bifold.pdf
The version that the Saudis are ordering is a better ship. It is bigger, has more VLS stations, a 76mm gun, and a more powerful radar station. It also has all the core features integrated directly into the design rather than "mission-packages." Seems like a much better option for a surface combatant than the LCS that the US navy currently has.
>>29334361
>The version that the Saudis are ordering is a better ship. It is bigger, has more VLS stations, a 76mm gun, and a more powerful radar station. It also has all the core features integrated directly into the design rather than "mission-packages." Seems like a much better option for a surface combatant than the LCS that the US navy currently has.
The USN is building very similar SSC versions without as much VLS oomph. This being primarily because the USN has 84 Burkes/Ticos with more on the way. They don't need a ship of the smallest viable blue water combat tonnage class with VLS crammed into it. It's still primarily a sensor picket/ASW/aviation focused asset for the USN.
The biggest thing is having a few dozen more first class ASW assets in the water. AA fleet defense is more than covered.
>>29333260
Also tenth of endurance and built purely for littoral operations.
>>29334246
>the LCS is in service and inexpensive
It's expensive as fuck for what it is. It's oversized 45kt+ corvette with weak armament that is meant to replace frigates.
>>29334703
>littoral combat ship = good
>purely littoral combat ship = bad
Range and blue-water seaworthiness is important, certainly, but the whole point of the LCS, if i'm not mistaken, is to operate in shallow and littoral waters almost exclusively. To your point, it's too underarmed and underpowered for much of anything else
>>29335184
You sometimes need to travel through deep water to get the shallow water anon.
>>29333201
Armament?
>>29332968
>I am objectively retarded
>>29335184
>if i'm not mistaken
You are mistaken. It is also meant to provide ASW screening and LAMPS III based AA picketing for blue water assets, as well as providing convoy escort (a Burke or Tico and several LCS for high-value UNREP etc assets), just as OHPs did.
Give it at least three or four times more weapons, extend the landing pad over those two nubs sticking out the ass, and extend the hangar to give it more space.
Give it all the capabilities of a Burke but not as many VLS cells, basically.
Maybe give it a boat/landing craft bay if you wanna be cray.
Make it cheaper or alternatively make it worth the $350 mil price.
