|
I haven't been in for 12 years(holy poo poo I'm old), but have they done away with a lot of the nice MWR stuff? I always liked the Auto and wood hobby shops.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
Seqenenra posted:LCS is certainly useless. This is not right. They certainly can fill the same role that the OHP's do now which is exactly what they are designed to do. Not saying that the classes are perfect, or even problem free, but they're not worthless. If you want to argue that the Navy should not be doing the things that the OHP's have been doing for decades, and thus shouldn't need the LCS, that's much more nuanced. But to say that LCS is useless is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
The LCS is not useless. It is, however, expensive and does absolutely nothing to mitigate the massive deficiency in our surface Navy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Boon posted:The LCS is not useless. It is, however, expensive and does absolutely nothing to mitigate the massive deficiency in our surface Navy. I don't think anyone said this. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Maybe I should have said that as a sonar technician, the LCS seems useless to me. It also appears helpless in an AAW environment and kind of under-gunned when compared next to ships with a 5". It has two helos, but so do most other ships. It just seems like a ship with no role other than "defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in the littorals" whatever that means. Maybe it'll be good for guarding the oil terminals next to Iraq if we're still doing that these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:I don't think anyone said this. I'm agreeing it's not useless and elaborating that it's an insane folly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Seqenenra posted:Maybe I should have said that as a sonar technician, the LCS seems useless to me. It also appears helpless in an AAW environment and kind of under-gunned when compared next to ships with a 5". It has two helos, but so do most other ships. It just seems like a ship with no role other than "defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in the littorals" whatever that means. Maybe it'll be good for guarding the oil terminals next to Iraq if we're still doing that these days. You are right that it is not a very capable ASW asset, but it wasn't really intended to be. Also, 57mm is, no poo poo, the best gun in the Navy and I would take it in a heart beat over the 5". The thing is that it is not a destroyer. It never will be, and it wasn't intended to be. It is a corvette by most standards, but since the Navy is so DDG centric at this point people get upset that there is non-destroyer combatant out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Boon posted:I'm agreeing it's not useless and elaborating that it's an insane folly? The ship is not an insane folly, but it's very reasonable/interesting to argue that the maritime strategy that would lead to the ship being built is folly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
It could be my bias, but I read that as non-combatant destroyer at first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Have they actually been able to get one of those stupid loving things underway without it almost sinking yet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
They did a whole National Geographic show on them while underway. I discovered that my former WEPS is the CO of one. So I guess the answer is that they got underway without sinking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:The ship is not an insane folly, but it's very reasonable/interesting to argue that the maritime strategy that would lead to the ship being built is folly. I'm not really sure how you can defend these ships. Both here and literally on the high seas. There is a very good reason that the original buy was cut beyond the long-term financial projections. There is literally nothing that they do better than another platform already in the fleet. Not anything worth doing anyway. Boon fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
bengy81 posted:Have they actually been able to get one of those stupid loving things underway without it almost sinking yet? Yes
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Boon posted:I'm not really sure how you can defend these ships. Both here and on the high seas. The ships and their development are misguided at best. There is a very good reason that the original buy was cut beyond the long-term financial projections. The program was cut for a number of reasons, not the least of which is because the Navy can't make up its mind what its strategy is going to be. Also you are exactly correct that it's not better then any other ship. However regardless of how much the cost balloons, it still way cheaper then BURKE which is the real point. Since the bulk of the Navy's mission is not really Aegis centric it does not make sense to crank out billion dollar destroyers to chase pirates, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:The program was cut for a number of reasons, not the least of which is because the Navy can't make up its mind what its strategy is going to be. I understand that the LCS was built to combat a specific threat. The problem is, even now, the product we've received is subpar with much better equivalent vessels in our own allies fleets. In fact, there are US companies currently producing better corvettes/frigates for our allies. Is it better than the OHP? Absolutely. Is it cheaper than a Burke? By about 4 times. That's not the point. The ships have a very limited role in today's Navy. Not only would I hate to serve on one of those pieces of poo poo, I'd be in many ways morally outraged that anyone would even send them into harm's way if their role were expanded. The whole loving program is a boondoggle which attempts to address a problem that was never that serious in the first place. Boon fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Boon posted:The ships have a very limited role in today's Navy. Not only would I hate to serve on one of those pieces of poo poo, I'd be in many ways morally outraged that anyone would even send them into harm's way if their role were expanded. I guess I would ask what the primary threat the Navy addresses actually is? If you say that LCS is unsuitable for today's operational environment that implies you think that the primary threat, and the driver of our ship acquisition, is a technologically advanced, near peer competitor which I don't necessarily agree with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:I guess I would ask what the primary threat the Navy addresses actually is? If you say that LCS is unsuitable for today's operational environment that implies you think that the primary threat, and the driver of our ship acquisition, is a technologically advanced, near peer competitor which I don't necessarily agree with. They were originally supposed to be multi role enough to go in harm's way. We paid for that capability and didn't get it. Someone out there will try to send one on a mission it's not suited for. Having a warship that can only operate in permissive environments is pretty dumb. You can do that with a Boston whaler and a .50cal. Iran already does. We could have purchased or licensed an allied design perfectly suited for littoral poo poo pirate interdiction for much much less cash and have a capable platform with a defined role.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:They were originally supposed to be multi role enough to go in harm's way. We paid for that capability and didn't get it. No they weren't. They never were. Laranzu posted:Having a warship that can only operate in permissive environments is pretty dumb. You can do that with a Boston whaler and a .50cal. Iran already does. While the permissive environment thing is a fair point, the idea that you can replicate LCS with FAC/FIAC is dumb. Laranzu posted:We could have purchased or licensed an allied design perfectly suited for littoral poo poo pirate interdiction for much much less cash and have a capable platform with a defined role. Actually we can't. Legally the Navy is barred from buying and building foreign designs. That said trying to replicate the LA FAYETTE class, minus some of it's fancier AAW capabilities, would probably have been a better idea, not going to deny it. The problem is that we don't have enough data to really judge the effectiveness of the LCS hulls. Basically they are in the same place that both the BURKE and the PERRY class were in at this point in their lives which is everyone saying they were some combination of too expensive/underarmed/not as survivable when compared to their predecessors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:No they weren't. They never were. The littoral is in harm's way. Unless it's somewhere off the coast of San Diego. The proposed mission sets were definitely not in pacified environments. Mine sweeping / asw / sw / could put the ship in danger really fast. FAC don't have the open ocean transit capability, but if a destroyer needs to be there to cover the LCS anyway, what Is the upside? ManMythLegend posted:Actually we can't. Legally the Navy is barred from buying and building foreign designs. I know this, it's just as dumb. Throw money into a procurement hole just because. The designs are out there. We still lack a cheap small hull we can churn out capable of tossing missiles lone wolf style while extending networked sensor range. A small number of expensive hulls loses out. Maybe they are just waiting for drones to fill this niche. Edit: look at me, arguing boats when I cross rated to never see one again. I really don't care, just bored tonight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:The littoral is in harm's way. Unless it's somewhere off the coast of San Diego. The proposed mission sets were definitely not in pacified environments. Mine sweeping / asw / sw / could put the ship in danger really fast. Yes, some of its mission sets were not in fully in permissive environments, but that doesn't mean that it can't go there. It's SeaRAM is literally the most effective self defense weapon in the Navy. The missions you mentioned already required CRUDES cover with existing assets. Do you think we send MCM's in alone and unafraid? The point is that the vast majority of The missions the Navy does are in permissive environments and single mission focused. The LCS is designed with this in mind and it's supposed to "fight out" of trouble, not "fight into" it. It's a corvette that is open ocean capable and world wide deployable which is something none of the other trendy LCS alternatives (looking at you VISBY) offer. The fact that I can buy 3 to 4 for the cost of a DDG and send them off to do the poo poo jobs frees up a DDG for more specialized and (arguably) more important stuff like BMD patrols. Laranzu posted:I know this, it's just as dumb. Throw money into a procurement hole just because. The designs are out there. You want the "street fighter" which is basically a Russian style disposable ship with missiles and guns bolted all over it. It gets trotted out in LCS arguments all the time. The problem is the concept is dumb, and harkens back to an antiquated method of naval warfare. The reason why other navies build ships like that is because they have to. The fact is that we don't use ships to kill other ships. We use airplanes to kill other ships, and we use ships to protect our airplanes. Wanting a street fighter is like saying you think the Navy is going to get into this hypothetical prolonged conflict where we are going to be engaging enemy combatants with our ships but won't be committing our carriers and their strike groups to the problem for Reasons. The bit about extending sensor networks is important, true, but is done by other assets better. ManMythLegend fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
 I think I found the solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:I guess I would ask what the primary threat the Navy addresses actually is? If you say that LCS is unsuitable for today's operational environment that implies you think that the primary threat, and the driver of our ship acquisition, is a technologically advanced, near peer competitor which I don't necessarily agree with. Yes. While I don't think it's driven our ship acquisition to date, it has been the shift in strategic focus - and we're lagging. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:Yes, some of its mission sets were not in fully in permissive environments, but that doesn't mean that it can't go there. It's SeaRAM is literally the most effective self defense weapon in the Navy. The missions you mentioned already required CRUDES cover with existing assets. Do you think we send MCM's in alone and unafraid? I like you. Seqenenra posted:
Yet the Mk92 / Whatever-the-dutch-who-made-it-call-it is ancient. It can't do much more than three engagements at once (two gun-only at 2D), and it can be easily countered if you pump enough RF at its general direction. Anyways, Frigates were good. They were just getting worn out; you can only fix that aluminum boxtop so many times. I will miss them when they're gone. We were pretty much useless but for the fact that we could deliver a pair of SH-60s to the horn of Africa and maybe find a Romeo class sub in optimal conditions, but hey! - that 14 day endurance meant a lot of port calls!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
TooLShack posted:Pensacola isn't that bad, just stay way from the west side. Alabama? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Vriess posted:Alabama? Nah more like West Pensacola has a higher violent crime rate than Miami.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Was at a wedding a couple of weeks ago and one of the guests works for the company building the LCS down in Mississippi. Was actually interesting to hear about some of the progress made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
LCS owns because it's fast and has just two people sitting in the pilothouse driving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:Saying they're useless is a bit of stretch. How do you figure? Most of the mission modules *still* only exist on paper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
buttplug posted:How do you figure? Most of the mission modules *still* only exist on paper. Right now, it does everything the OHP can do (minus tail ops) but better. The mission modules will add capability beyond that. Even if most of them do end up being vaporware LCS can perform all of the numerous "fleet bitch" roles that we send frigates out to do now and that aren't going to just go away when the OHP's do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:Right now, it does everything the OHP can do (minus tail ops) but better. The mission modules will add capability beyond that. Even if most of them do end up being vaporware LCS can perform all of the numerous "fleet bitch" roles that we send frigates out to do now and that aren't going to just go away when the OHP's do. And what's the last useful thing OHP has done? And seriously, that's pretty SWO of you "even if the mission modules end up being vaporware". How about we not take a program that has already ballooned 150% in cost and done nothing of demonstrable value and say it does "everything our most neutered, least-capable platform does" and call it a win. OHP was widdled down to the point of being nothing more than a presence. It's most capable weapons system was a last-defense system on any other CRUDES platform. This is yet another instance of the surface Navy being sold a bill of goods by contractors who 1) weren't ready to loving deliver and 2) when they did, delivered under-performing crap that was wrapped up in a nice package. Sure, it looks sexy, but it doesn't do jack poo poo. LCS is nothing more than a glorified speedboat [that burns through a tank of gas at a flank bell in 5 hours]. Calling it a "littoral" combat ship is pretty much a dead giveaway of the mentality that was pervasive when it was blessed off on...Kind of hard to call it littoral when it's supposed to replace FFGs which operate well outside the littorals. buttplug fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
All of this is with the presumption that it's a permissive environment. You don't need a $500 million dollar frigate do to conduct these roles in a permissive environment. The LCS is a liability in a near-peer environment,and in an increasing number of environments our SUW threat isn't just near-peer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
What's up with all the give a poo poo the last few days? Hasn't anyone been fired? No child porn charges? Graft scandal involving national secrets?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
My god this thread sure is navy, loving nobles making GBS threads up the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
I took a tour of an LCS one time when it was moored across from us. It was pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
buttplug posted:And what's the last useful thing OHP has done? Without inviting the OPSEC fairy's wrath on this thread, there is a very important capability that is only possessed by OHP's and LCS's that has led to some very recent, very newsworthy events. That is in addition to the more mundane tasks they can perform. buttplug posted:And seriously, that's pretty SWO of you "even if the mission modules end up being vaporware". How about we not take a program that has already ballooned 150% in cost and done nothing of demonstrable value and say it does "everything our most neutered, least-capable platform does" and call it a win. OHP was widdled down to the point of being nothing more than a presence. It's most capable weapons system was a last-defense system on any other CRUDES platform. You have to step back for a moment and separate the LCS platform, from the LCS program. I was there in early days of the program. It was, and still is, a dumpster fire. I agree that it has been managed terribly by the Navy and executed horrendously by the contractors. It is the worst of the early 2000's SWE all rolled into one. I will never defend the LCS program, and I think that anyone involved in its procurement should be fired and barred from any work in acquisitions. In fact, as I've said before, if I could go back in time I would probably have tried to get a LA FAYETTE variant minus the fancy air defense capabilities and with a TACTAS or MFTA bolted on. The platform however is a very different matter. The LCS ships do exactly what they are needed to do, which is fill in for all of the stupid Phase 0/1 missions that the Navy is expected to perform. A lot of the hate for the ship comes from hate for that mission set because it's not sexy, it's not high speed, it's pretty lovely and boring actually, and since the LCS is a ship that is designed solely to execute that mission set it gets labeled as "useless". However, the bottom line is that that mission set is here to stay. It's not going away. If anything, it's going to get even larger given how the demand signal for CNT/CP/MIO/EMIO/Partnership Stations/etc has grown continuously over the last decade. That demand signal literally cannot be met by building BURKEs. Period. Full stop. You can stomp your feet, and cross your arms, all you want but it's just a fact. That's why I get upset that people say that the LCS is useless. It's because they're wrong, but they can't even comprehend why they're wrong. Complaining that the LCS is not as combat effective or survivable as a BURKE or a TICO is like complaining that an OHIO is bad at air defense. They are not designed to meet the same mission set. They never were. Comparing an LCS to anything not a missileless-OHP is an apples to oranges comparison. That's why I said before that the proper way to argue about LCS is not complain about it's capabilities, but about the strategy that led to it's development and feeds it's ROC/POE. If you think that the Navy should be 100% geared to fighting the next Big WarTM with a near peer competitor that's fine. There are cogent arguments to be made there. I totally agree that in a Big War maritime strategy, LCS has little to no place. However, that's not the strategy the Navy is operating under. It's not 100% the Navy's fault either, as none of the National Defense Strategies for the last 3 presidents have set that framework. The strategies that have been in place for nearly the last two decades have been one that focuses on low intensity, Phase 0/1 operations. That all said, the LCS is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. However, it does exactly what it's supposed to do, and does it rather well. Having served on both an LCS and an FFG I felt way safer on the LCS, so the notion that we should all be outraged about the survivability of the platform is hyperbole. Its Sea Giraffe radar is one of the most capable in the fleet outside of SPY. The SeaRAM is literally the most effective self defense weapon in the fleet outside of possibly SM-6 but I haven't seen the all the Pk's for that yet. The 57mm BOFORS is an amazing gun and is better than the 5" in almost every way except max range. They're getting back fitted with 30mm remote cannons to add a little more FAC/FIAC punch. They're getting fitted with Hellfire Longbow to give them a slightly longer stick. These are all things that are explicitly better then the OHP's they're replacing. Are they good as a DDG? No, and they never will be. As for flaws, they lack organic ASW capabilities. Minus hoping for a mission package to work, they can embark SH-60R's which are amazing ASW assets, but without a tail or hull mounted sonar they aren't really useful for screening. Arguably their biggest weakness, and one you never hear about, is their crew size/berthing arrangements. There is very little margin of error for a person getting sick or hurt on deployment without impacting mission capability. Endurance concerns are a red herring because all of the numbers you hear are for the ship sprinting around at 45+ knots constantly which, as we all should know, is not how ships operate. The standard configuration is for them to steam around on one or both MPDE's which gives them comparable endurance to other classes and still lets them get to 17+ knots. The bottom line is that if you're going to complain about LCS, at least know what you're talking about before you accuse me of being a SWO and defending it while you rattle off the standard Sailor Bob talking points. I will also remind you that both the ARLEIGH BURKE and OLIVER HAZARD PERRY classes, which are both continuously put on pedestals during LCS arguments, had literally the same complaints levied against them when they were first hitting the fleet and everything with them turned out fine. ManMythLegend fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
What do you think of the SSC and adding an over the horizon missile?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
TCD posted:What do you think of the SSC and adding an over the horizon missile? I think OTH capability is very nice and good. Even if you're never going to make a SAG full of LCS's to go hunt down LUYANGs or SOVREMENNYs, having an LCS or two in the AOR with an OTH missile changes the targeting calculus of the adversary because they can't really just ignore it any more and it forces them try to dedicate assets to locate it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
Geizkragen posted:What's up with all the give a poo poo the last few days? Not exactly fired... http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/01/15/fat-leonard-bribery-scandal-pleas-entered/21835153/
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
Seqenenra posted:Not exactly fired... http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/01/15/fat-leonard-bribery-scandal-pleas-entered/21835153/ Good to see the LS1 going to jail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 16:18
|
|
