"“We’ve got the least capable 3,000-ton warship,,,”" Topic

"We've got the least capable 3,000-ton warship in the world", reports an independent navy analyst.

Not really something to brag about, but the title pretty much says it all.

A sad day for the US Navy, which I and other "armchair admirals" having been saying for some time.

Seems a shame it is only getting some official, if albeit supposedly secret notice, in official memos now.

On the plus side, maybe this will distract a bit from the F-35 disaster.

Here's more info on the subject. It appears that mere amateurs may know a little something about naval vessels, and weapons systems and their development, afterall:

link

It appears to me the LCS couldn't even go up against Iran's latest "destroyer", which is really a lightly armed corvette being deployed in a brackish lake, for patrol duty.

I still am incredulous over the fact that they plan to build 24 of them, as is, and then to possibly consider some weapons upgrades in the future.

They make for a set of nice looking naval yachts though, once you fix the cracks in the hull, and scrub away all that corrosion, but it sounds to me like they'd be vulnerable to even Somali pirates, should they attempt a boarding action against them.

Ah well, perhaps they'll throw another few hundred Billion dollars at it, to fix the problem.

Hopefully, they will succeed, eventually.

… once you fix the cracks in the hull, and scrub away all that corrosion…

Although one type has the cracking issue, and the other type has the corrosion issue…

But it has a cool camo paint job.

"Although one type has the cracking issue, and the other type has the corrosion issue…".

Give them time Bill. Afterall, they are fairly new.

The above isn't really a ringing endorsement of their construction quality, even if they only have one defect or the other.

LCS apparently stands for Little Crappy Ships.

1960s era missile boats of 1/10th the displacement, or less, had better armament, were faster, and probably more survivable too, since they were a lot smaller.

Still, they probably do make nice yachts, I imagine, which is pretty much all they're good for, since they can't carry a mine-sweeping helo either.

"since they can't carry a mine-sweeping helo either"

And minesweeping is supposed to be on their missions…. And where are those mysterious 'Mission Modules' we keep hearing about? The world wonders……

Remember when we were supposed to get a float off between the two prototypes to get the best ship for our money? So, we're so decision-impaired we can't even flip a coin to choose between them? It could be worse, the mission modules could be delayed or not work . . . oh, wait.

Look, it's not such a problem; the Royal Navy has been doing this for generations. Get on to Whitehall for some tips (but you have to keep the civil servants and ministers we send you).

And one of them will be named USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10); we have become so politically correct.

Mark

I still am incredulous over the fact that they plan to build 24 of them, as is, and then to possibly consider some weapons upgrades in the future.

Check out in whose districts they are being built. That is the only thing that really matters.
Doing future upgrades is even more jobs-intensive!

Actually, it's a ploy. They're going to send them all to patrol off Iran and NK. That way, neither country will be able to complain about being 'threatened'. If the ploy works, expect the UK to build a couple for use in the Falklands.

Look, it's not such a problem; the Royal Navy has been doing this for generations. Get on to Whitehall for some tips (but you have to keep the civil servants and ministers we send you).

Yes, its not that Naval Architecture in the UK is stuck in a time warp, or that Civil Servants don't know better than sailors what sailors need, its just that the Royal Navy has been conducting a long term experiment in how best to operate poorly designed, under gunned, obsolescent at launch platforms.

The answer, in most cases, appears to be Black Masking tape, affectionately known as 'HBM' – Harry Black Maskers…

Just get your procurement agency to buy in a few tons and you'll be using these ships for the next 3 decades….

Well, we may buy better, but we'll never pay more.

I'd prefer a USS My Little Pony to naming a ship after some congresswoman. Don't you have to be dead, a president, or both to have a ship named after you????

Unfortunately the Giffords won't be allowed to carry guns.

But the article is just more anti-military Liberal propaganda. "Analysts" are no different from theater critics – they only get paid for criticizing.

Number6, whatever the anti-military propaganda may be behind this article, the LCS have been criticised by pro-military types as well.

Basically they're replacing a third of the USN combat fleet with large overcosted, undergunned Off Shore Patrol Vessels.

If they wanted OPV's, they should've kept them simple (most are built to commercial and not military standards), and then brought a new frigate class or more Arleigh Burkes.

In my opinion, scrap DDX and LCS, buy more Arleigh Burke destroyers and cheap OPVs for anti-piracy duties.

I'm definitely pro-military, but against anemically armed vessels, which are way overpriced, and have holes and corrosion in them when delivered as "new".

Even worse is they plan to waste more money repeating the same error 24 times over, buying from the same manufacturers/designers that built such shoddy, poorly thought out vessels in the first place.

Someone needs to deep-six their military procurement department and personnel, and hire some people who know how to build "warships", on time, on budget, and heavily armed to be able to face future threats.