"USN's shipbuilding failure" Topic

link

"The USS Freedom had its own special place within the armada. It was one of a new class of vessels known as littoral combat ships. The U.S. Navy had billed them as technical marvels — small, fast and light, able to combat enemies at sea, hunt mines and sink submarines.

In reality, the LCS was well on the way to becoming one of the worst boondoggles in the military's long history of buying overpriced and underperforming weapons systems. Two of the $500,000,000 USD ships had suffered embarrassing breakdowns in previous months. The Freedom's performance during the exercise, showing off its ability to destroy underwater mines, was meant to rejuvenate the ships' record on the world stage. The ship was historically important too; it was the first LCS built, the first in the water, commissioned just eight years prior."

Old news, perhaps, but this analysis suggests the basic problems have not been corrected.

One of the worst shipbuilding decisions in modern history. I never understood the mission.

We have covered this in detail in other posts. The ship with too many missions, not enough crew, and bad gears. Know as the " Little Crappy Ships" by some in the Navy.

To me, while the Navy's expectations and vision for this class may have been flawed, the worst part of this is the interference and corruption in Congress to force the Navy to spend more money on these in order to pump up the influx of federal dollars into their districts. And the deliberate false equivalent of comparing numbers of ships with China in order to pump up the paranoia and keep the money flowing. No shame….

Sad … we used to build some of the best warships in the world … And with China having a bigger navy than us. This should be a priority. Well after climate change of course …

But hey, the CV USS Gerald Ford was only constructed 2 years behind schedule, and then took just five more years of refitting, sea trials, re-refitting, more sea trials, and re-re-re-fitting to enter service! Who says we've lost it, eh?

In part, this is typical for first-of-class vessels. And, both the Navy and the contractors kept making changes as construction tech and specs evolved. It is a lot of money and a long time. But there has been a lot to learn and these ships are much improved over Nimitz, new tech and features.

Who does think we've lost it? I admit I am biased….

I would say that this class and the Virginia class subs are the best warships in the world, but not without issues. We know from history that we have to keep moving. Yamato was the best battleship in the world at one point. Kido Butai was revolutionary in concept and performance for a brief time, could outperform any other navy for air ops.

Russia has one carrier, the "Floating Dumpster", which trails smoke everywhere it goes. NK rides around in diesel powered subs. China's first full size carrier,
is nearly operational, still 20,000 tons smaller than the Fords.

Who would prefer Chinese naval air expertise to ours? Are the Chinese ships better built? They have more ships…what types?

We can never sit still and things are far from perfect. Don't underestimate the Chinese,they are getting there. But their system is not perfect either.

Littorally, sunk costs.

IIRC the Coast Guard has been having its' share of missteps in ship building.

That assumes the CG gets money for ships. From the reports of their helos aging problem it looks like they get the scraps, yet they are performing missions daily that have direct outcomes.
As for other nation's ships it doesn't matter if they are crappier or better. The $$ the US spends on ships and with the knowledge we (should) have they should be better, certainly better than the Russians (primarily a land-based focus) and the PLAN (maybe naval power in the past but a relatively new comer. Settling for "whatever" is ok when you don't plan on using it.

Of course, our CVNs still rule the waves and air space …