"LCS cost nearly as much to run as destroyer" Topic

So the Littoral Combat Ship costs nearly as much to run as an Arleigh Burke destroyer despite the destroyer having far more capability.

link

Also the Navy is still looking for a role for these next to useless overpriced, unreliable junk heaps.

Fancy, high-powered, complicated engines do cost a lot more to operate than standard ones, so this is NOT surprising.

A pity they didn't think about this before proceeding so far down this path with glorified, anemically armed, naval "yachts".

Perhaps they should outfit them with trolling lines for deep sea fishing, so they can at least provide some utility to the service, by providing fresh fish for the navy personnel, helping to defray costs for food for our sailors.

The "fancy, high powered, complicated engines" (MT30s) are becoming a standard GT in destroyer designs around the world. Its not them that are driving the cost. Maybe whats downstream from the turbine…….

"Also the Navy is still looking for a role for these next to useless overpriced, unreliable junk heaps."

Turn them into unmanned floating drones & set them out as pickets/first line of targets for the more expensive ships they need to keep… ;-)

Hmmmm…I find it interesting that a couple of posters
here with a history of 2 years and 3 years respectively
know a shed load more about US military capability
than some folks I know personally (like a recently
retired RAdm USN who spent his entire career in
Naval Aviation) and a BG USMC (retired 3 years ago).

One wonders why an Aussie in particular would speculate
so much on the US's lack of good assets versus a
major Asian power. Perhaps due to the asset lack of other
nations which are closer to that power ??

One wonders why an Aussie in particular would speculate
so much on the US's lack of good assets versus a
major Asian power. Perhaps due to the asset lack of other
nations which are closer to that power

Because I recognise my prosperous existence is solely due to the US and its military.

As for assets…

Unlike Europe or most of SE Asia, Australia has continued to maintain and even expand its forces (though some of it has been badly spent).

If the US doesn't bring capability to the party , the western way of life is at a threat because most other westerners won't do their bit.

E.g In 1980s RAAF was relatively small by European standards. It is now a large force having maintained its fighter numbers at around 100. But it has also added AEW&C, electronic warfare, strategic airlift etc (though it lost long range strike due to replacement of F-111 with short legged F/A-18F).

The Navy is probably the biggest problem. Ship numbers have been stable (ie 11-12 surface combatants plus 6 subs). But a lot of the procurement has been wasteful and inefficient as naval shipbuilding is viewed as primarily a jobs creation program (especially air warfare destroyers and even worse the submarine program). Also never understood the purpose of two near unarmed Canberra class LHD's – big expensive ships that cannot launch an F-35B and require a large chunk of the surface fleet to act as escorts in an actual war.

Maybe those LHD's are for Australia's expansionist plan that you've now leaked?

I tease because I love.