Help support TMP


"U.S. Navy Designates New Fighting Ship USS Cleveland" Topic


10 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board



344 hits since 9 Oct 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2018 4:15 p.m. PST

"The United States Navy has designated a new ship as the USS Cleveland, the fourth since World War I.

Under Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly made the announcement on Monday, saying the ship will be a littoral combat ship meant for coastline missions. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports Modly made the announcement at the USS Cod Submarine Memorial in Cleveland.



Modly says the ship will be built in the U.S., and will feature an open architecture that facilitates modularized weaponry….."
Main page
link


Amicalement
Armand

28mm Fanatik09 Oct 2018 4:26 p.m. PST

Not Grover?

Thresher0109 Oct 2018 4:54 p.m. PST

Yea, about that "modular weaponry"……….

What seemed like a good idea in theory is apparently a failure in practice.

pmwalt09 Oct 2018 5:16 p.m. PST

Seems "Cleveland" has been named for a light cruiser to an Amphib … now this … not really a fan of the LCS

Lion in the Stars09 Oct 2018 7:25 p.m. PST

Thresher: The Danes made it work 20 years ago, but for whatever reason the USN didn't specify STANFLEX architecture on the modules for the LCS. Probably 'Not Invented Here'.

jdginaz09 Oct 2018 9:41 p.m. PST

@Thresher, I'm curious is thee any US weapon system that you believe will work? Do you think the military all are complete idiots?

carne6810 Oct 2018 6:38 a.m. PST

The sad fact is that we have the basis for a highly capable class of frigates. Unfortunately, it belongs to the Coast Guard.

link

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP10 Oct 2018 6:50 a.m. PST

Didn't know the navy were big fans of Seth MacFarlane.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP10 Oct 2018 10:56 a.m. PST

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Thresher0111 Oct 2018 12:06 a.m. PST

@jdginaz

Tico and Arleigh Burkes work, apparently.

AND yes, there are a lot of problematic designs being pushed by some of limited intelligence, and no doubt, tightly tied to their favorite corporate lobbyists/suppliers, in exchange for future board member positions and lucrative salaries, once they retire from the Pentagon.

Yes, the LCS is virtually a total failure, unless you want an overly expensive, navy yacht for deep sea fishing off the fantail.

Jury is still out on the Ford class, but it appears the electro-magnetic catapults are having major issues, are not ready for "prime-time", and may have to be replaced with conventional steam catapults.

Same too with the Zumwalt, which is supposed to have "state of the art" weaponry, but the rounds are so expensive they can't purchase them. The hull design may be unstable in heavy seas, and the vessel could literally capsize while turning, in following seas. The design is so expensive, only 3 are to be made (instead of the 32 planned 29 canceled), which is a huge waste of very expensive R&D money.

"Originally 32 ships were planned, with $9.6 USD billion research and development costs spread across the class. As costs overran estimates, the quantity was reduced to 24, then to 7, and finally to 3, significantly increasing the cost-per-ship to $4.24 USD billion (excluding R&D costs)[1][16][17][2] and well-exceeding the per-unit cost of a nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarine ($2.688 billion).[18][19] The dramatic per-unit cost increases eventually triggered a Nunn-McCurdy Amendment breach and cancellation of further production.[20][21] In April 2016, the total program cost was $22.5 USD billion with an average cost of $7.5 USD billion per ship.[2]" quote from Wikipedia.

F-35 is an overpriced dog too, with many problems still to be addressed, and very limited internal ordnance capacity. With external stores, it loses stealth, so its expensive design is compromised, and it can be easily seen, caught, and destroyed.

F-22 is good, but the F-23 would have been better. USAF/Pentagon went with the safe, more conventional design. If, the oxygen system issues have been addressed, it should be a good fighter. Problem is, the USAF bought far too few of them.

That's just not my opinion. Many others in the defense industry, and military have expressed the same concerns, as have some of our politicians too.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.