"Wanted, Bigger US Navy, Not Wanted, LCS" Topic
12 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Showcase ArticleCan you identify the specialist?
Featured Book Review
|
jowady | 11 Feb 2017 12:02 p.m. PST |
It would appear that the two competing studies on the future path of the US Navy agree on two things, it needs to be bigger and the LCS has no place in it. |
Lascaris | 11 Feb 2017 12:53 p.m. PST |
I agree that the LCS is a travesty however the navy only needs to be bigger if we continue to task it at the current level. We could reduce demand to the current size of the fleet. We also need to fund what we have before we go build more. I've read 3 articles this week on USNI about issues with maintenance and manpower levels. |
Mako11 | 11 Feb 2017 3:55 p.m. PST |
The LCS is a sad, and exorbitant joke on the American taxpayers. |
emckinney | 11 Feb 2017 6:35 p.m. PST |
There are certain people in the administration who, I suspect, think that you van wave a magic wand and have a much larger navy. Then there are the people who have some idea what they're talking about. You can improve maintenance a lot faster, even with the lead time for parts and even training maintenance personnel |
doug redshirt | 11 Feb 2017 7:06 p.m. PST |
We only have to defend two coasts with the navy. That should be the first priority of the navy. Since there is no US merchant navy, or much of one, we dont have to defend ships registered in foreign countries. Do you care if Chinese or German ships get sunk? As long as no foreign soldier steps onto US soil from an invading ship, the Navy has done its job. Anything left over can go to help defend allies we have treaties with. Japan, South Korea, Australia and Nato. Now how big does the Navy have to be to defend an ally? That is what war plans are for, to figure that out. Remember Japan and south Korea have fleets, how much do we need to add to help? Which is a better buy, submarines or carriers. During WWII the leading cause of shipping loses and restricting movement was mines laid by submarines and planes. I don't trust anything written and sponsored by a defense contractor either. |
jowady | 11 Feb 2017 7:30 p.m. PST |
We only have to defend two coasts with the navy. That should be the first priority of the navy. Since there is no US merchant navy, or much of one, we dont have to defend ships registered in foreign countries. Do you care if Chinese or German ships get sunk? As long as no foreign soldier steps onto US soil from an invading ship, the Navy has done its job. Where to start? Well, there are our alliances to begin with as well as bringing our troops over to defend those nations that have been and continue to be our allies. United States Naval Doctrine is predicated on force projection, not simply defense. Frankly to defend the Coasts (West and East) no navy is needed. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 11 Feb 2017 9:07 p.m. PST |
If we didn't waste so much money on the LCS we would be well on our way to having a 350-ship Navy. |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Feb 2017 4:56 a.m. PST |
I don't trust anything written and sponsored by a defense contractor either. How about something written by a former Sailor? We only have to defend two coasts with the navy. That should be the first priority of the navy. Since there is no US merchant navy, or much of one, we dont have to defend ships registered in foreign countries. Do you care if Chinese or German ships get sunk? I care if those Chinese or German ships are carrying Americans! Or supplies needed by American troops. Or supplies needed by Americans here at home. As long as no foreign soldier steps onto US soil from an invading ship, the Navy has done its job. That's not the Navy's job inside the US's national defense theory. The Navy's job has been to take the fight to the enemy, ever since 1797.
Anything left over can go to help defend allies we have treaties with. Japan, South Korea, Australia and Nato. Now how big does the Navy have to be to defend an ally? That is what war plans are for, to figure that out. Remember Japan and south Korea have fleets, how much do we need to add to help? Japan has a "Navy" (Maritime Self Defense Force) about as big as the UK's RN. The US 3rd Fleet is larger than that. The MSDF is marginally capable of stopping an actual invasion of the Japanese home islands, and would be relying on US support to actually kick an invader out. South Korea needs naval support in the form of amphibious assault capabilities, to cut off any invader's supply lines. The carrier support they need is interdiction and CAS for the grunts. Which is a better buy, submarines or carriers. During WWII the leading cause of shipping loses and restricting movement was mines laid by submarines and planes. And the US has maintained a relatively large fleet of subs, but it's about 2/3rds the size that the actual combat commanders need, based on missions that require a submarine to actually complete. We'd need to build 4x Virginia-class subs a year, plus the Columbia-class SSBNs, to get to where the submarine fleet can support everyone else's demands for submarine missions (usually sneaky crap that never officially happened, like in Blind Man's Bluff). But submarines are terrible at showing the flag. Carriers are the obvious "hey, the US is concerned about what is happening in the area" tool of diplomacy. Bill Clinton said that whenever he got a phone call at 3am about some crisis flaring up in buttcrackistan, his very first question was always, "Where are the carriers?" Having 100,000 tons of diplomacy show up off your coast is a very good way to get someone to reconsider their actions. |
nukesnipe | 13 Feb 2017 8:01 a.m. PST |
I made the mistake of telling an Admiral LCS was a huge mistake back in 2003. I may have used words to the effect "A-12 of the 21st Century". Being on his staff at the time, I had a pretty tough tour after that…. |
SouthernPhantom | 06 Mar 2017 9:11 p.m. PST |
Nukesnipe (I'm going to assume you worked on or near reactors with that username!), while an unpopular opinion, you were completely vindicated in the end. I guarantee you that Admiral knows that now, if he remembers the conversation! |
Lion in the Stars | 06 Mar 2017 11:05 p.m. PST |
Funny enough, I always thought that the A12 was a good idea. Crappy bombload to be sure (2x AMRAAM, 2x HARM, and 2x 2000lb bombs), but it's an improvement over the F117 (it's rough contemporary in mission). And if you get right down to it, the F35 has less internal bombload (only 2x AMRAAM and 2x 2000lb bombs)! But you'd have some A12s and some FA18s in the air wing, unless the A12 was modified to carry external stores. And that complicates matters greatly. If the LCS mission modules had actually been built (or had the USN bought the Danish STANFLEX modules), we'd be OK with them. But no mission modules means that the ships are basically unusable. |
StarCruiser | 07 Mar 2017 4:45 p.m. PST |
"If the LCS mission modules had actually been built (or had the USN bought the Danish STANFLEX modules), we'd be OK with them. But no mission modules means that the ships are basically unusable." And this is why there should be a lawsuit against the Defense Contractors over this insanity… |
|