The Navy aren't happy with the ASW capabilities and they don't like the maintenance overhead.
also I think the anon means the Navy wants to focus on building more Frigates and so they're shifting funding away from LCS.
>The Navy aren't happy with the ASW capabilities
I looked into this indepth and this is not the entire story. Do you have anything actual to add or are you just repeating shit that you heard someone say online?
>weren't they literally
Freedom had the gear issue (now fixed), Independence had the issue of cracks on the hull from high speed travel in bad sea states. The cracks occurred above the waterline and modifications were made from the 14th Independence and on. The concern was sea state 4 (choppy ocean water quality), not 2 (coastal water quality), and the limit was 15 knots which is pretty normal transit speed for other ships.
>Freedom had the gear issue (now fixed)
Its not. They know the fix, actually paying for it and taking the time to do it are different things. This is the main reason they want to drop every Freedom class >modifications were made from the 14th Independence and on
They went back and fixed most of the previous ones (or will be on next major maint). I think there is something like 3 they don't plan to fix (schedule for decomm or training boat). >The concern was sea state 4 (choppy ocean water quality), not 2 (coastal water quality), and the limit was 15 knots which is pretty normal transit speed for other ships.
This was only for one specific ship (Omaha) the rest just got told to watch for any cracks and keep track of them (till they got the fix in place).
>Its not. They know the fix, actually paying for it and taking the time to do it are different things. This is the main reason they want to drop every Freedom class
is someone paying you to be moronic?
Nov 2021: >In January, the Navy announced it would not take deliveries of the Lockheed Martin-built Freedom-class LCS until the class-wide issue with the under-engineered combining gear from German manufacturer RENK AG was repaired. The gear links the ships’ diesel engines and gas turbines. The determination followed two high-profile propulsion failures in USS Detroit (LCS-7) and USS Little Rock (LCS-9). In total, 13 ships required the repair to the gears. >With Minneapolis-Saint Paul cleared to deliver to the Navy, Lockheed and RENK AG will continue to repair the ships under construction at Marinette Marine – Cooperstown (LCS-23), Marinette (LCS-25), Nantucket (LCS-27) and Beloit (LCS-29). The final Freedom-class ship, Cleveland (LCS-31), will be outfitted with a fully corrected combining gear, the Navy has said.
LCS Cleveland was literally the last one, pictured here striking a tugboat. >the rest just got told to watch for any cracks and keep track of them (till they got the fix in place).
wrong, half of the Independence class ships currently in service developed cracks in their hulls >They went back and fixed most of the previous ones (or will be on next major maint). I think there is something like 3 they don't plan to fix (schedule for decomm or training boat).
The details on the "fix" were unclear, unlike the gear which is publicly documented as being done, my impression was that they simply priced out the fix, demanded Austal do it on future ships, and then put a hold on the process of implementing it. >“Modification consists of replacing deck plate and shell plate with thicker material, among other actions,” he said. >“the U.S. Navy’s mitigation plans are being developed as part of each ship’s maintenance and modernization.”
1 year ago
Anonymous
>is someone paying you to be moronic?
I am aware they insisted on the ones still being built coming with the fix, but what about the ones they had already taken delivery of? You know, the majority of the ones produced? >wrong, half of the Independence class ships currently in service developed cracks in their hulls
...and what does that have to do with me pointing out that it was only one ship restricted in speed? Is that false? Also the crack were in the deck plate, not the hull. >The details on the "fix" were unclear
No, they were VERY specific on the fix. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about and just repeating things you've heard. They used a heavier (read:thicker) deck and shell plate for specific sections of the ship. If you are looking to know between which frame numbers they did them there is information out there to get a general idea but that is absolutely not something that would ever be publically disclosed. >my impression was that they simply priced out the fix, demanded Austal do it on future ships, and then put a hold on the process of implementing it.
My understanding is the cost to repair the already produced ships was split (there was some indication that Austal warned the Navy about this during design but were ignored; go figure listening to the people who make a living of aluminium ships might know a thing or two about them); I don't have info on the exact share as I don't believe it was ever released. The future models were just fixed in production at effectively no change in cost. Scuttlebutt is that the added weight had little effect on top speed (<1 knot). As I said before, many have already been fixed and they already are set up to do most of the rest when they next come in for long port (we'll see how the yard backlog deals with that).
I suggest to you that you look into how often ships develop cracks in their plates, its not nearly as uncommon as you might think and the headlines were diaster baiting.
Not him, but two issues with aluminum. Metal fatigue becomes an issue much faster on aluminum meaning the hulls life span is limited. Second issue is that aluminum can and will catch fire when struck. The Saudis bought an old aluminum hulled ship from the US which burnt down after getting hit.
Have anything to back up those claims? Could start with the name of this ship that burned down.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Have anything to back up those claims? Could start with the name of this ship that burned down.
It was the fast ro-ro ferry that caught a C802 chingchong harpoon class missile outside Yemen. Now you know enough to find the name and pictures of the wreck.
1 year ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/jPJzzfH.jpg
Hsv 2 swift moron. How new are you? Are you incapable of utilizing Google? Why don't you source these nuts?
Frick you homosexuals. You say something happened and I want to learn about and you come back with this shit. This is exactly why /k/ is shit now. You drive off people who genuinely are interested and encourage the homosexualry of tourists like this
https://i.imgur.com/awpcRtZ.jpg
[...]
Black person worship has reached a point that they are using taxpayer money to put basketball courts on boats
and
[...]
.
Gonna go read now because that's all I wanted.
1 year ago
Anonymous
You're clearly here post 2012. I can pull up plenty of examples of /misc/ related trash prior to king Black person's reelection and way before 2016.
1 year ago
Anonymous
1 year ago
Anonymous
No, you're being a homosexual. This board has had almost 10 years of proofs shitposting and nobody puts up with it anymore. You could have just googled "Saudi arabia ship missile attack" and gotten it as the first result.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Hsv 2 swift moron. How new are you? Are you incapable of utilizing Google? Why don't you source these nuts?
>They sucked
Litteral garbage designed by morons >the Navy's focus shifted to China
Already was the case >Constellations will replace them in the fleet
No
>The Navy aren't happy with the ASW capabilities
I looked into this indepth and this is not the entire story. Do you have anything actual to add or are you just repeating shit that you heard someone say online?
>they sucked
no >the Navy's focus shifted to China
yes >Constellations will replace them in the fleet
no
Oversized corvettes from when the navy thought the biggest threat it would be facing would be Iran. They can do 45 knots despite being frigate-sized but they barely have any weapons. Their most useful characteristic is that they're large enough to operate helicopters. They have roughly the armament of a coast guard cutter with slightly better defensive capabilities. Good for drug patrols, anti-piracy missions, and supporting special ops. Bad for nearly anything else.
>Visby actually makes sense though, it's decently armed
u w0t? >the US who can generally leave littoral duties to the coast guard
The absolutely dumbest fricking thing yet
Freedom-class: > 3,500 tons > 1 × BAE Systems Mk 110 57 mm gun, 400 rounds in turret and two ready service magazines with 240 rounds each. > 1 x Mk 49 launcher with 21 × RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Surface-to-Air Missiles > 4 × .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns > 8 x RGM-184A Naval Strike Missiles
It might get a 150kw laser upgrade at some point, AFAIK all of the original mission module weapons have been cancelled (Hellfires, 30mm cannons, etc)
Independence-class: > ~2,500-3,400 tons > 1 × BAE Systems Mk 110 57 mm gun > 1 × Raytheon SeaRAM CIWS > 4 × .50-cal guns (2 aft, 2 forward) > 8 × RGM-184A Naval Strike Missiles
and again as with the Freedom-class, all mission module weapons were cancelled afaik.
So they've got CIWS and some .50 cals that the Visby doesn't have. But they weigh 3-5x as much. Also, gen 2 Visbys are supposed to have long range surface to air missiles to take part in NATO air defense strategy.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Note that the Freedom class also has an issue with the 57mm: it can *only* be operated in manual (joystick) mode. There is no gunfire control radar installed. Since the USN likes the 57mm over 76mm and 127mm primarily for its CIWS capability, this is something of a problem.
Also, aside from the long-cancelled NLOS-LS, most weapons were always intended to be deployed from the helo and UAV. ASW? Helo. MCM? Helo. SUW? The helo helps out. And yet, the aircraft complement is one single Seahawk plus (in theory) a Firescout-sized UAV, which means that there will be significant periods of time when the only helo is down for maintenance. Why? Because one of the other "new concepts" that produced LCS was to reduce costs by dramatically reducing manning, and helo dets aren't small.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Since the USN likes the 57mm over 76mm and 127mm primarily for its CIWS capability, this is something of a problem
That's more of a last option though.
The SeaRAM is the primary CIWS.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>The SeaRAM is the primary CIWS.
Agreed; however, the Mk 110--IF it has a GFCS capable of targeting radar tracks--should be far superior to Ye Olde Phalanx.
>it wouldn't be used for CIWS unless shit had hit the fan in which case you're probably fricked regardless.
You're not wrong but I'd still like to have that option available as a last resort fallback if it comes to it. Besides, assuming he's right about this issue (still hoping he'll pop back with a link or something) the lack of more advanced integration is a loss for more than just CIWS use. But, this is the Freedom-class afterall which has been an absolute albatross on the LCS program so no surprise there. >Destroyers with their 127mm still makes some sense I suppose.
They are putting the same 57mm on the Constellation (new frigate). Thoughts?
>They are putting the same 57mm on the Constellation (new frigate). Thoughts?
I can see where they're going with the concept--combining the gun and the Phalanx (both of which are not commonly used no matter how much the old salts claim otherwise) into a single mount saves a fair bit of money, topside weight, and deck space. However, I still feel a bit leery about it, considering that 127mm gives you far more range and HE fill, and it's far from obsolete when you consider that things like the M1156 PGK, which could easily be incorporated into a naval mount, or the work done on a 5" version of the HVP designed for the railgun project, neither of which would make much sense for the 57mm.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I think the main issue with the 127 is the Navy really wanting to still focus on boat/drone swarm threats and less on shore bombardment. You might still see a 127 on the upcoming DDG-X (assuming it actually happens this time) but personally I think with the proliferation of anti-ship missiles, UAS threats, and also potentially USV and UUVs has made hostile coast is more dangerous than ever. I think the 57mm should act more in the line of an additional CIWS layer together with SeaRam and any directed energy weapons the develop on the high kilowatt/megawatt range is feasible.
IMO if you want the shore bombardment capability then a dedicated USV that's cheap, reliable, and is just packing a 127 and maybe a Phalanx/SeaRam is enough. Then you can afford more guns to generate higher volume and you don't care as much about attrition. 127mm with PGK is def not obsolete I just think the platform should evolve and manned surface combatants can use that deck space for something to deal with the bigger threats like sea skimmers etc.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>MCM? Helo
Its also supposed to use the Knifefish UUV and CUSV. They were also supposed to play a big role in the ASW too before that module got dropped (thank you very much Freedom-class). >the aircraft complement is one single Seahawk plus (in theory) a Firescout-sized UAV
There are actually two types/sizes of Firescout and it can 2 of one of them (or a single of the other). Also, the LCSs can actually "operate" more than that but that's all they have hanger space to service at one time, manned helo included. >Note that the Freedom class also has an issue with the 57mm: it can *only* be operated in manual (joystick) mode
First I'm hearing of this. Where did you hear this from?
>Since the USN likes the 57mm over 76mm and 127mm primarily for its CIWS capability, this is something of a problem
That's more of a last option though.
The SeaRAM is the primary CIWS.
You're right that its not great for CIWS but its actually a lot better for AA then most give it credit for or realize.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>You're right that its not great for CIWS but its actually a lot better for AA then most give it credit for or realize.
Oh I agree, I was more just replying to his claim that it being manually controlled was a huge problem for CIWS when in reality it wouldn't be used for CIWS unless shit had hit the fan in which case you're probably fricked regardless.
But yeah, the 57mm is honestly pretty solid and I agree with the US's choice of 57mm over 76mm for the primary naval gun of the modern escort fleet. Destroyers with their 127mm still makes some sense I suppose.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>it wouldn't be used for CIWS unless shit had hit the fan in which case you're probably fricked regardless.
You're not wrong but I'd still like to have that option available as a last resort fallback if it comes to it. Besides, assuming he's right about this issue (still hoping he'll pop back with a link or something) the lack of more advanced integration is a loss for more than just CIWS use. But, this is the Freedom-class afterall which has been an absolute albatross on the LCS program so no surprise there. >Destroyers with their 127mm still makes some sense I suppose.
They are putting the same 57mm on the Constellation (new frigate). Thoughts?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>They are putting the same 57mm on the Constellation
Seems fine, it's got missiles for primary CIWS and air defense, as well as long range land attack or anti-ship missiles. The 57mm is really just for cheap intimidation (fire a few shots at pirates to scare them into surrendering) or for cheap shore bombardment, as well as backup CIWS/Air defense.
Constellation-class is honestly really exciting capabilities for its price, it has got most of the capabilities of a modern burke at half the cost and 30% lower manning. Sure it has got a fair fewer VLS cells, but if you dedicate most of those VLS cells for ESSMs and have it run escort role for a CSG paired with DDGs, you've now allowed your DDGs to focus more VLS cells on BMD missiles, TLAMs, etc instead of short-range air defense missiles (ESSMs) to protect the CSG.
A lot more useful than the LCS-classes at least.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>A lot more useful than the LCS-classes at least.
We'll see
1 year ago
Anonymous
They've got VLS cells, you could park them in port 24/7/365 and they'd be more useful than the LCS-classes.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Why is the navy not just building comeercial cargo ships stacked to the gills with VLS cells if its the only measure of value for a ship? Why is no country doing this? Is it possible your priorities are miscalculated?
1 year ago
Anonymous
What do you think LUSVs are?
1 year ago
Anonymous
They've got VLS cells, you could park them in port 24/7/365 and they'd be more useful than the LCS-classes.
>Why is the navy not just building comeercial cargo ships stacked to the gills with VLS cells if its the only measure of value for a ship? Why is no country doing this? Is it possible your priorities are miscalculated?
Constellation also has a lot more in the way of ASW sensors, processing power, and manning than LCS had. The primary on-board sensor--the now-cancelled AN/SQS-62--apparently never worked like it was supposed to, with the result that not only has the LCS's ASW module been cancelled, but Thales has walked away with the tail contract for Constellation.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Look into it, it actually worked for the Independence class just fine for years. The issue was the wake from the Freemdom class fricking with it. So they kept making changes and trying to get it to work and the Indi passed the tests but couldn't be certified due to the organization of the LCS program requiring either both to be certified or neither. Its literally fricking absurd and I wish they'd just split the classes already as its continually been an issue. One of them is a complete failure and one is an cutting edge ship with design quirks that can be worked around to be very useful.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Locksneed-Shartin strikes again!
1 year ago
Anonymous
>First I'm hearing of this. Where did you hear this from?
From discussions with a bunch of (mostly active-duty or recently-retired) USN officers back when the LCS was still being designed and laid down. It was an open issue even way back then. There is no equivalent to the Mark 92 or Mark 86 GFCS fitted, and COMBATSS-21 (at least the version installed initially) did not include any capability to be aimed using the TRS-3D. During trials, the gun was only tested against surface targets using the EO/IR sensor and the joystick. Note that this was also rumored to be part of the reason why the Mk 110s were dropped from the DDG-1000 in favor of a pair of 30mm Bushmasters (also joystick-only, and much lighter).
Now... that information is well over a decade old at this point. I have never heard anything to suggest that the situation has changed; however, seeing as how COMBATSS-21 is going to be used on *both* LCS classes going ahead (which I hadn't realized until just now)--and the Constellation class as well--it's entirely possible that LockMart has coded in the capability to fire the gun at radar tracks from non-SPY radars in the years since then. I would be tickled pink to learn if that's true, as this issue has been a burr under my saddle for over a decade now.
>Their most useful characteristic is that they're large enough to operate helicopters.
Their least useful characteristic is that they decided to give them enough space to operate helicopters, and then allotted the entire goddamn back half of the ship to that purpose. LCS would be extremely capable if half kept these helipads for anti-submarine operations and the other half gutted the helipad in favor of a frickhuge array of vertically launched drones and missiles.
The second least useful characteristic is their lack of an integral SPY-7, so they'd have to use teeny SPY-1F if they are converted for the "budget Aegis" role. On the plus side, they are small enough that they can reasonably serve as detachments to provide anti-aircraft support close to the shore without compromising a CSG.
>Oversized corvettes
They aren't oversized for the ship type, its just that most countries that build corvs do so on the super cheap and thus generally have smaller boats. Go back and look at corvs from ww2 and see these are just a bit larger which is perfectly in line with the general increase in size of all types since then (probably even less so). >being frigate-sized
Seriously, they aren't large, not nearly frigates. >but they barely have any weapons.
This was questionable from the onset and is certainly no longer true. >They have roughly the armament of a coast guard cutter with slightly better defensive capabilities
Holy shit where do you people get this horse shit from? >Bad for nearly anything else.
Please
>Seriously, they aren't large, not nearly frigates.
Pic related is a La Fayette class frigate which is a similar size and displacement to the LCSs. >This was questionable from the onset and is certainly no longer true.
Bolting 8 NSMs on the front does not fundamentally change things. They have no real VLS cells which is incredibly limiting in every regard. It means no ESSMs, no ASROCs, no SM2s. This is why their armament capabilities aren't that different from a legend class cutter, which you can also bolt NSMs onto if you really want. The fricking VLS hellfires are useful to absolutely no-one and shouldn't even be counted. If they had been built with space for even 8 tactical length VLS things would be completely different and they could have been transitioned into a capable small surface combatant, but they weren't so here we are.
LCS are theoretically ideal for hunting diesel electric submarines in an environment where surface/air threat is covered. Open up the throttle to 50 knots and laugh at any torpedo.
>La Fayette class frigate
A budget frigate designed in the 80s? This you thnk is a good indication of your position? How about the fact that its being replaced by a frigate called "intermediate size frigate" that is 25% larger? Kinda gives the impression that the La Fayette is small for the type. >Bolting 8 NSMs on the front does not fundamentally change things
You're an idiot, got it. What's your next point? >They have no real VLS cells which is incredibly limiting in every regard
So your logic is ship value is solely tied to number of VLS cells? This is the same idiocy as the cannon caliber races in the 20th century. Bravo. >This is why their armament capabilities aren't that different from a legend class cutter
Kinda missing a few major things aren't you? >which you can also bolt NSMs onto if you really want
Except you can't for a couple of reasons but even if you could it still doesn't have them and thus your original point is false by your own admission. Also interesting that you picked the largest most heavily armed cutter class in the world (I think) as you example of an avergae Coast Guard cutter. Real good faith. >The fricking VLS hellfires are useful to absolutely no-one and shouldn't even be counted.
You already adequately demonstrated you were an idiot to me, you don't need to repeat yourself.
>A budget frigate designed in the 80s
A frigate is, in fact, a frigate >So your logic is ship value is solely tied to number of VLS cells?
No, but the inability to operate entire classes of defensive and offensive weapons is a bit of an issue. It leaves you with limited options for both attacking and defending yourself. Having to almost entirely rely on a RAM launcher for your AA is not ideal for a ship of this size. >Except you can't for a couple of reasons
They've done it in the past without issues. The Legend class is perfectly capable of hosting a few deck mounted missiles. The navy has explicitly discussed adding harpoon launchers to the Legend class in the past.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>A frigate is, in fact, a frigate
Way to not enage with the point. I accept your concession on this. >No, but the inability to operate entire classes of defensive and offensive weapons is a bit of an issue
It has "entire classes of defensive and offensive weapons" that other (larger) ships don't have. Are they now worthless as well by that logic? >Having to almost entirely rely on a RAM launcher for your AA is not ideal for a ship of this size.
Why? Would the solution have been to make the ship larger and more expensive in order to have more of the type of AA you want? Would you then not complain even louder that it was undergunned for its size and a moneysink? >The navy has explicitly discussed adding harpoon launchers to the Legend class in the past.
How far did you look into that? Because there were some serious obstacles to getting that to work and those were just Harpoons. This isn't just a matter of having enough open space on the main deck where a missile launcher could physically sit.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why? Would the solution have been to make the ship larger and more expensive in order to have more of the type of AA you want? Would you then not complain even louder that it was undergunned for its size and a moneysink?
I would have built a a direct replacement to the OHP guided missile frigates, which is what we neglected to do in favor of the LCSs for way too fricking long.
1 year ago
Anonymous
1 year ago
Anonymous
> Harpoons. This isn't just a matter of having enough open space on the main deck where a missile launcher could physically sit!
Literally is and they literally did exactly that with Harpoons on the Iowas. You'd better sit this one out if you didn't know that.
1 year ago
Anonymous
He’s going to sit here and claim the shipyard told the navy they need 500 billion dollars to launch a feasibility study on the stability effects of putting a few missile launchers on the vast, open space of the LCS’s.
90% of the trooning out about how ships “cannot do” something is the MIC b***hing for more money and refusing to hire more workers or open new yards. This is the entire premise of the argument that the US “can’t” build 2 subs per year.
Not him, but there are currently no real alternatives to VLS for ship-based ASW or AAW beyond CIWS ranges (triple-tubes, RAM). If you want ESSM or ASROC, much less SM2(IIIC)/SM6, you need VLS.
>How about the fact that its being replaced by a frigate called "intermediate size frigate" that is 25% larger? Kinda gives the impression that the La Fayette is small for the type.
there are no actual tonnage sizes for different classes, youve been lied to. this is why ticonderogas (cruisers) can be built on spruance (destroyer) hulls etc. etc.
but even if there were tonnage limits, the FFG(X) is heavier than the previous frigate because.... all american warships are getting heavier. the DDG(X) is also much heavier than current destroyers and the CG(X) program was like double the weight of current cruisers when it was still a thing. >good faith
oh youre just moronic and know nothing about warships i see
antipiracy and drug busting are important jobs though. the modern global economy is based on US dominating and patrolling the global oceans for 60 years noe to prevent piracy and to stop small dickhead countries from just yoinking shipping freighters. Supercarriers can't be everywhere at once and its a waste of money to have supercarriers and larger boats dealing with smalltime pirates. Leave destroyers and carriers for fighting actual navies.
I'm sure a cutter with a few M2s does the job just as well for a fraction of the cost. Pirates and narcos are not known for being particularly well-armed, armored, or disciplined.
yeah i kinda figured that out the more i looked at it. No reason to have this massive expensive capabilities including stealth for chronic pirates or narcos bullshit. And if a shithole country with a shit navy does decide to cause shenanigans, the cost of deploying destroyer and frigates to the area and destriying their navy is cheaper than building and upkeeping these $500M ships that arent very useful in a nearpeer fight.
The US railgun program was scraped, BUT japan has recently invited the US to participate in THEIR new railgun project, which is seemingly about a railgun for missile defense not shore bombardment (what the US wanted a railgun for).
But yeah, japan says they figured out the barrel ware issues the US was having, at least for smaller caliber stuff (suitable for BMD/HCM/HGM intercepts)
Yeah the good news is railguns might be back on the menu, just smaller than we had imagined.
1 year ago
Anonymous
The wear issue was due to the caliber, supposedly they could also squeeze near rail gun velocities out of cheaper standard barrels with new propellants. I assume the japs want to pilfer that HVP research as well.
The railgun and HVP systems were killed by politics and doctrine since both were meeting their projected goals ahead of schedule. A number foreign buyers for both interceptor system and some revitalized bombardment system could actually make these homosexuals start taking shit seriously and drop the unit price via continuous mass production. However I still wouldn't hold my breath for the bombardment system since they will need foreign buyers, the US supposedly decided that supersonic cruise missiles loaded with cluster munitions better fit requirements than a single really fast chunk of metal or even a homosexual of metal rods that split before impact.
You know how militaries are always fighting the last war? This is the navy designing a ship for GWOT / An Iran war that never came and forgetting that naval procurement takes a decade or more.
The pivot back to the Pacific means these have very little role to play.
>Theyre useless for everything else, especially the near peer conflict with china the usn is now preparing for, hence why theyre being gotten rid of
Holy shit I don't get how willfully ignorant you people insist on being
Not your anon and only speaking about one of the classes. For the love all that is holy, please understand that the LCS ships are not the same.
>Chinese Navy
The overwhelming majority of the ships in the PLAN are small, easily counterable by a current Independence-class, much less any future additional armaments. >Air Force, and Rocket Force
Its purpose is not to directly engage those assets but is hardly vulnerible to them. I never see anyone talking about the stealth/reduced RCS characteristics despite it being one of its greatest qualities. Additionally the NULKA has seen limited use but appears to be incredibly effective. Finally, that speed isn't just for show; it makes the craft incredibly difficult to hit with OTH munitions, particularly in combination with the obscene manuevarability.
Oh and I've heard about this but still waiting to find out how feasible it is
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2017-01-12-Lockheed-Martin-s-Latest-Electronic-Warfare-System-for-Helicopters-to-Safeguard-U-S-Navy-Against-Anti-Ship-Missile-Threats
Assuming it works well, then the INdi is gonna excel at it.
In short, navies don't just build one class of a ship that is "the best," they build a variety to handle a wide array of mission types. Anyone asking why it doesn't have "bigger guns" (read VLS cells) is missing the point and either ignorant (or intentionally playing dumb) of the soft power it does exert. Its a small, fast low-crewed, hard to find, harder to hit intelligence platform and priority support. Sure, you could sink it, but at what cost? When the USN is running 2 or 3 CSGs all over shit do you want to dedicate your patrol ships chasing after this shit and half of your batteries dumping salvos into empty water hoping to get lucky and outnumber the odds?
Last point: This is not a OHP replacement, anyone upset that it doesn't match up isn't paying attention. The Constellation is your lady there.
I haven't yet openned your links as I'm unsure what point it is you are trying to make. If you want to talk with me about this (even disagree) that's fine but I'm not interested by just being assigned homework by some rando.
tl;dr: What about these links?
1 year ago
Anonymous
China's navy is larger in total ships, will nearly be double that of US by the end of 2030, if China doesnt increase their budget. They're already a good 30% larger in navy.
China's naval tonnage is ~1/2 that of US today, but that gap will close as the decade comes to an end.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Okay...Maybe I'm misunderstanding here (seriously, my bad if I am), but I don't think I said anything about the PLAN having less ships than the USN nor anything about the total tonnage.
The closest comment I can think I made to that is pointing out that most of the ships in the PLAN are relatively small (corvettes, frigates, and missile boats). Do you feel that is a false statement?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Difference in combat role. The smaller ships are for guarding their borders, while the US's larger is to navigate the more expansive ocean. The difference doesn't really matter too much because the functionalities are same minus the roles.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Difference in combat role.
A topic I didn't touch or bring up in the slightest.
WHO ARE YOU ARGUING WITH? ARE THEY IN THE ROOM WITH US NOW?
1 year ago
Anonymous
It matters because you seem to be downplaying their advantages because of "smaller" ships argument. Which is nonsense for the given near future scenario. The more ship they have, the more coverage, the faster they can deploy, the more they can have effective blockades. Given their large arsenel of submarines and "smaller" ships as a means to both a bait and switch, the threat of a blockade is very much real.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>It matters because you seem to be downplaying their advantages because of "smaller" ships argument
No argument was made you. Please engage with the topic and not what ever scarecrow is spooking you. I just pointed out that the PLAN has the majority of their number counted in smaller ship types. I ask once more: Is that a false statement?
Not asking if that is bad, just if it is true.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>small ships for guarding local shores have no operational overlap with one literally named "littoral combat ship"
wew lad
China's navy is larger in total ships, will nearly be double that of US by the end of 2030, if China doesnt increase their budget. They're already a good 30% larger in navy.
China's naval tonnage is ~1/2 that of US today, but that gap will close as the decade comes to an end.
Difference in combat role. The smaller ships are for guarding their borders, while the US's larger is to navigate the more expansive ocean. The difference doesn't really matter too much because the functionalities are same minus the roles.
It matters because you seem to be downplaying their advantages because of "smaller" ships argument. Which is nonsense for the given near future scenario. The more ship they have, the more coverage, the faster they can deploy, the more they can have effective blockades. Given their large arsenel of submarines and "smaller" ships as a means to both a bait and switch, the threat of a blockade is very much real.
Hypothetically speak, if you didn't eat breakfast this morning how would you feel?
Assuming they don't gut all the electronics all at once, Freedom-class could sell to the Italians to replace the rest of their aging Maestrale-class frigates, since it would be much cheaper than getting more FREMM ($300 million ea vs €600 million ea). Alternatively, LM might refurbish and resell them as MMSC to the Saudis, they've been begging for permission to do so for years.
Independence might go to SINKEX though, too niche for anyone else.
I don't know, maybe because they cost twice as much and Italy is unlikely to ever fight another naval battle in its history? LCS would give the capacity at an affordable cost, not every country needs to have fully tricked out frigates for their entire fleet when they just want like 4 or 5 extra ASW frigates to patrol high priority coasts (which is why the US buying LCS was so weird strategically in the first place)
this exact calculus is why they still have Maestrale despite previously saying they'd decommission them for FREMM already
They may be twice as expensive, but they're also twice as capable. They're genuine medium frigates, with proper armament and, just as important, sensors (capable of guiding Aster 30s). The only things the LCS offer are high speed and an oversized Osprey-capable helicopter deck (which is useless to the Italians).
Heck, in terms of raw combat capability, the LCS are worse than even the Doha class. The US genuinely doesn't know how to build efficient small combatants. Even teh joos went with ThyssenKrupp for their Sa'ar 6 corvettes.
I have no real bone in this fight, but the anon arguing that these things are fine and everyone else (including the navy) is moronic for the intense criticism of both the workmanship and lack of usefulness these things provided is simply bizzare.
They are awful ships, without a clear purpose, that do almost everything they’re supposed to do at an astronomically higher cost and weight than what other platforms could be doing. They are ridiculously undergunned and under protected. This is objectively fact, you can whine about it and claim you have better information but at the end of the day, they aren’t survivable.
All that being said, had the design quality been good enough to operate these things in an ASW role at 45 knots, that would be cool, but they can’t even do that. There shouldn’t be another dollar spent on these, every cent for the next decade spent on the LCS should be centered around retiring them as fast as possible and earmarking more shipyards for Constellations.
>that these things are fine and everyone else (including the navy) is moronic for the intense criticism >They are awful ships, without a clear purpose
Is it possible there is a middle ground? Is your thinking really that binary?
not that anon.
but the ships literally do not work.
the drive doesnt work and they were limited to like 5 knots.
the modular weapons dont work either.
and now that the mission has changed from "crushing sand people for the benefit of israelites" to "actually dealing with americas real enemies" the ships are completely worthless. IIRC they dont have any VLS, correct me if im wrong on that tho.
My thinking isn’t binary, it’s just unclouded by the crushing feeling of needing to be a contrarian. It’s okay to call a spade a spade and not beat around the bush. When something is a piece of shit, why cover for it?
>we want to goto war with iran. >billions spent on shit ships that dont work to fight a shit country. >oh wait, thats moronic, neocons are moronic, and the israel lobby is moronic. >china is the real threat >shit ships are worthless against real countries. >billions wasted
just another decade in the US navy and MIC
>at least they realized it was stupid as opposed to doubling down
i legitimately believe that the neocons intentionally sabotaged the military to prevent us from confronting china.
>Wut, why? That would be in direct contravention to neoconservative foreign policy thinking.
not really.
they were pursuing "engagement" with china instad of military. additionally, neocons are heavily sorrupted by globalist corporations that are heavily invested in china.
>they were pursuing "engagement" with china instad of military
They were pushing for the opposite. A strong military buildup to ensure American military hegemony. >neocons are heavily corrupted by globalist corporations
I’m no sure if you can call them corrupted if they’ve had a strong corporatist streak from the beginning.
1 year ago
Anonymous
im sorry?
was it not the neocons and clinton that let china into the WTO?
and was it not the neocons that pissed away 20 years in the middle east for zero benefit while china became a peer competitor?
am i remembering that correctly? or did i wake up in the bizarro dimension?
pic related.
wasted money.
1 year ago
Anonymous
The neocons didn’t piss away 20 years in the Middle East. That started in the Obama years culminating to today. It was an is a strategically vital location and especially pre-fracking was a crucial part of the worlds oil supply. I don’t know if you’ve looked at a map but a continued presence in Afghanistan would have given us a steppingstone right into China’s hinterland, allowing us to pulverize them for both sides. We did decide to give that up for zero strategic benefit, but that was over the protestations from the neocons.
As for the WTO, the assumption was that we could collapse the Chinese the same way we did the Soviets. Even by the early 2000s this was starting to be looked at as an increasingly bad idea, but it was one that was always coupled with a overwhelming military superiority.
I’m not a neoconservative, the ideology has some serious problems. But back then they were absolutely the foreign policy hawks, Just because they made decisions that in hindsight 20 years later weren’t optimal doesn’t change that.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>The neocons didn’t piss away 20 years in the Middle East. That started in the Obama years culminating to today.
Obuttfricked was presidunce in 2002/2003? Destroying Iraq was a neocon core directive. 9/11 was used as a pretext for that.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Destroyer Iraq was a strategically sound decision for all that it was mishandled. The situation didn’t go off the rails in Iraq and Afghanistan until the Obama years.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Nixon and Clinton were NeoCons
absolutely brain dead and ignorant.
democrats fully embraced china at all costs, being ready to tolerate their system and had a massive campaign against cons for not doing the same. You might be actually insane
1 year ago
Anonymous
Nixon was the president that made the call to normalize relations with communist china. Biden has objectively been one of the most adversarial presidents on the China question for decades. Corporate elites(on both sides of politics) want continued open access to the Chinese market. The problem is China is going to start cutting into to markets that US elites need to dominate, and that is a problem, hence the push to prepare for a war with China.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Biden has objectively been one of the most adversarial presidents on the China question for decades.
Just like his predecessor?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Actions speak much louder than words
1 year ago
Anonymous
Your really going to pretend that the democrats didnt and torpeado any and all legislation and exec+utive orders aimed at China?
You really think the rest of us dont notice the forced amnesia?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Bush the Lesser kowtowed to the bugmen on several occasions, including that incident where a bugtard rammed a US patrol plane.
>When the current meta is "Distributed Firepower" to make chink ASBM spam much more costly. >Japs want to concentrate almost 200 VLS into a single ship
I see Japs have learnt nothing from their defeats in WW2
christ people like you are such insufferable c**ts
yes, the country that invented basketball is going to have a fricking basketball hoop strapped to any possible surface
have fun playing gayball on a rolling ship, homosexual, maybe when you dive over from a stiff breeze you won't fall overboard
>navy officers beg for goverment money to build such needed ships >navy officers steal some money for them and their families >jk citizens, we dont need them >sell ships and steal some money for them and their families
They wanted to fight endless terrorism against middle east.
Instead what we got was China's rise. China's 2 aricraft carrier strike groups are operational right now. It will soon double within the next few years.
>China's 2 aricraft carrier strike groups are operational right now.
Are they? When they scrambled up their recent "demonstration exercises" around Taiwan where was the full CSG? They had like 2 ships with the carrier (I think one was even just a fuel ship). Besides, even the Chinese publically that the oldest is just for training and not intended for action, so its a bit much to say they have 2 CSGs.
The Navy is rich and moronic.
They have no imagination to use these in new ways.
Squadron them in littoral areas around Maritime choke points and use them…in squadrons…to mog any enemy capital ships trying to transit from one ocean to another.
Push the transit into deeper waters where our fast attack subs can have at them.
The sine qua non of Naval Warfare is MOBILITY.
If you can limit that feature, you have interdicted the battle space in your favor.
The Navy has forgotten this in favor of intersectional Queer Theory and Marxism.
A number of things, actually.
*The Peace Dividend(tm) downsized most of the civilian DoD staff who worked in procurement. The manufacturers went through massive layoffs and multiple rounds of consolidation at the same time. Most of the folks who knew how to properly manage a procurement program were let go, and most of those skillsets have never been properly replaced.
*After ODS, DoD had no idea what to plan for next. There was a general assumption that it was "the end of history", and that threats would be limited to mostly minor powers (particularly, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or "some darn fool thing in the Balkans", all of which were active threats in the '90s).
*There wasn't a lot of perceived need for blue-water naval power, so the USN got asked a lot of pointed questions (including by Congress) of how exactly they planned to contribute to the small, land-based wars that were anticipated. With the final retirement of the Iowas, Congress mandated that the USN find a way to replace their shore bombardment capability. Tomcats were retired in favor of more Hornets; TLAMs became ubiquitous. Emphasis was placed on supporting expeditionary warfare (years before 9/11).
*As a result of all of the above, Rumsfeld and his bean-counters came in and rolled the dice on using advanced new technologies in order to reduce costs (particularly, head-count, because people are *expensive*), so that the US could still somehow manage to maintain its commitments on an ever-shrinking budget.
The result is DDG-1000. LCS. FCS. Comanche and its replacement programs ARH and AAS all being cancelled due to budget cuts. Crusader being cancelled for FCS NLOS-C, which then got cancelled without replacement, leaving the US with aging M109s for another 20+ years. And, yes, it also led to the dumpster-fire that was the early years of F-35's procurement, before a new team came in and got everything more or less straightened out.
>>hey we need a bunch of littoral combat ships
, no we don't
the US realized its utterly fricking futile to attempt to invade Taiwan to block China from rescuing from the clutches of homosexual liberal fascists
China will instaneously surround Taiwan, blockade it, and amputate the American parasite for good.
Taiwan will not only THANK China for it, but they will actively help cut the US cancer off too.
Cant wait to see China and the PLN FRICKING SHAME the US by pushing them out of Guam with hypersonic missiles
the US is in absolutely hysterical, pathetic free-fall, on its way to rock-absolute-bottom
Australia needs more surface combatants in the water ASAP, particularly ASW hunter killers with speed and teeth enough to protect themselves. What if they bought a couple of near-new Independence class boats, and used them to operate VTOL UAVs? The island chains around Indonesia & Malaysia seem like the ideal kind of environment for them, really. It mostly depends on how much the USN is wanting to sell them for.
A bit more than better. 4300 versus 3500 nautical miles, at the same cruise speed.
Also, as anon mentioned here
Look into it, it actually worked for the Independence class just fine for years. The issue was the wake from the Freemdom class fricking with it. So they kept making changes and trying to get it to work and the Indi passed the tests but couldn't be certified due to the organization of the LCS program requiring either both to be certified or neither. Its literally fricking absurd and I wish they'd just split the classes already as its continually been an issue. One of them is a complete failure and one is an cutting edge ship with design quirks that can be worked around to be very useful.
, the Freedumb class was completely unsuitable for integrating the very equipment that was initially intended for it.
they sucked and the Navy's focus shifted to China
Constellations will replace them in the fleet
>they sucked
no
>the Navy's focus shifted to China
yes
>Constellations will replace them in the fleet
no
The Navy aren't happy with the ASW capabilities and they don't like the maintenance overhead.
also I think the anon means the Navy wants to focus on building more Frigates and so they're shifting funding away from LCS.
>The Navy aren't happy with the ASW capabilities
I looked into this indepth and this is not the entire story. Do you have anything actual to add or are you just repeating shit that you heard someone say online?
>they don't suck
Werent they literally snapping in half above sea state 2 or something
No
>weren't they literally
Freedom had the gear issue (now fixed), Independence had the issue of cracks on the hull from high speed travel in bad sea states. The cracks occurred above the waterline and modifications were made from the 14th Independence and on. The concern was sea state 4 (choppy ocean water quality), not 2 (coastal water quality), and the limit was 15 knots which is pretty normal transit speed for other ships.
>Freedom had the gear issue (now fixed)
Its not. They know the fix, actually paying for it and taking the time to do it are different things. This is the main reason they want to drop every Freedom class
>modifications were made from the 14th Independence and on
They went back and fixed most of the previous ones (or will be on next major maint). I think there is something like 3 they don't plan to fix (schedule for decomm or training boat).
>The concern was sea state 4 (choppy ocean water quality), not 2 (coastal water quality), and the limit was 15 knots which is pretty normal transit speed for other ships.
This was only for one specific ship (Omaha) the rest just got told to watch for any cracks and keep track of them (till they got the fix in place).
>Its not. They know the fix, actually paying for it and taking the time to do it are different things. This is the main reason they want to drop every Freedom class
is someone paying you to be moronic?
Nov 2021:
>In January, the Navy announced it would not take deliveries of the Lockheed Martin-built Freedom-class LCS until the class-wide issue with the under-engineered combining gear from German manufacturer RENK AG was repaired. The gear links the ships’ diesel engines and gas turbines. The determination followed two high-profile propulsion failures in USS Detroit (LCS-7) and USS Little Rock (LCS-9). In total, 13 ships required the repair to the gears.
>With Minneapolis-Saint Paul cleared to deliver to the Navy, Lockheed and RENK AG will continue to repair the ships under construction at Marinette Marine – Cooperstown (LCS-23), Marinette (LCS-25), Nantucket (LCS-27) and Beloit (LCS-29). The final Freedom-class ship, Cleveland (LCS-31), will be outfitted with a fully corrected combining gear, the Navy has said.
LCS Cleveland was literally the last one, pictured here striking a tugboat.
>the rest just got told to watch for any cracks and keep track of them (till they got the fix in place).
wrong, half of the Independence class ships currently in service developed cracks in their hulls
>They went back and fixed most of the previous ones (or will be on next major maint). I think there is something like 3 they don't plan to fix (schedule for decomm or training boat).
The details on the "fix" were unclear, unlike the gear which is publicly documented as being done, my impression was that they simply priced out the fix, demanded Austal do it on future ships, and then put a hold on the process of implementing it.
>“Modification consists of replacing deck plate and shell plate with thicker material, among other actions,” he said.
>“the U.S. Navy’s mitigation plans are being developed as part of each ship’s maintenance and modernization.”
>is someone paying you to be moronic?
I am aware they insisted on the ones still being built coming with the fix, but what about the ones they had already taken delivery of? You know, the majority of the ones produced?
>wrong, half of the Independence class ships currently in service developed cracks in their hulls
...and what does that have to do with me pointing out that it was only one ship restricted in speed? Is that false? Also the crack were in the deck plate, not the hull.
>The details on the "fix" were unclear
No, they were VERY specific on the fix. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about and just repeating things you've heard. They used a heavier (read:thicker) deck and shell plate for specific sections of the ship. If you are looking to know between which frame numbers they did them there is information out there to get a general idea but that is absolutely not something that would ever be publically disclosed.
>my impression was that they simply priced out the fix, demanded Austal do it on future ships, and then put a hold on the process of implementing it.
My understanding is the cost to repair the already produced ships was split (there was some indication that Austal warned the Navy about this during design but were ignored; go figure listening to the people who make a living of aluminium ships might know a thing or two about them); I don't have info on the exact share as I don't believe it was ever released. The future models were just fixed in production at effectively no change in cost. Scuttlebutt is that the added weight had little effect on top speed (<1 knot). As I said before, many have already been fixed and they already are set up to do most of the rest when they next come in for long port (we'll see how the yard backlog deals with that).
I suggest to you that you look into how often ships develop cracks in their plates, its not nearly as uncommon as you might think and the headlines were diaster baiting.
>they sucked
>no
they are hot garbage. whoever decided on an aluminum hull should be hanged
>whoever decided on an aluminum hull should be hanged
Why? Please do explain what the issue is.
Not him, but two issues with aluminum. Metal fatigue becomes an issue much faster on aluminum meaning the hulls life span is limited. Second issue is that aluminum can and will catch fire when struck. The Saudis bought an old aluminum hulled ship from the US which burnt down after getting hit.
Have anything to back up those claims? Could start with the name of this ship that burned down.
>Have anything to back up those claims? Could start with the name of this ship that burned down.
It was the fast ro-ro ferry that caught a C802 chingchong harpoon class missile outside Yemen. Now you know enough to find the name and pictures of the wreck.
Frick you homosexuals. You say something happened and I want to learn about and you come back with this shit. This is exactly why /k/ is shit now. You drive off people who genuinely are interested and encourage the homosexualry of tourists like this
and
.
Gonna go read now because that's all I wanted.
You're clearly here post 2012. I can pull up plenty of examples of /misc/ related trash prior to king Black person's reelection and way before 2016.
No, you're being a homosexual. This board has had almost 10 years of proofs shitposting and nobody puts up with it anymore. You could have just googled "Saudi arabia ship missile attack" and gotten it as the first result.
Hsv 2 swift moron. How new are you? Are you incapable of utilizing Google? Why don't you source these nuts?
>they are hot garbage. whoever decided on an aluminum hull should be hanged
An aluminium hull is necessary to save weight to reach the targeted speed of 45 knots.
It also makes the ship better in the MCM mission role as it less susceptible to magnetoelectric measures.
>They sucked
Litteral garbage designed by morons
>the Navy's focus shifted to China
Already was the case
>Constellations will replace them in the fleet
No
> Scrap 6 LCS each year
> Buy 1 Conni to replace it....every alternate year.
You guys have broken me.
everyone agreed that they were ugly as frick and that aesthetics is king for militaries
they are so frickugly it's incredible. Like some knockoff of a James Bond villain boat.
>Oh shit everyone's doing figurative combat now
Probably happened
Underrated
>figurative combat
Is this the fabled Gerasimov Doctrine?
delightfully devilish anon
What are littoral combat ships?
There's supposed to be a C in front of "littoral". It's clittoral.
The best defence is obscurity. You can’t destroy a clittoral warship because no sailor has ever worked out where it is.
I do clitoral combat often. Red wing squad veteran.
fat frick shore patrol boats
Oversized corvettes from when the navy thought the biggest threat it would be facing would be Iran. They can do 45 knots despite being frigate-sized but they barely have any weapons. Their most useful characteristic is that they're large enough to operate helicopters. They have roughly the armament of a coast guard cutter with slightly better defensive capabilities. Good for drug patrols, anti-piracy missions, and supporting special ops. Bad for nearly anything else.
GOD IT'S SO UGLY
Well, let's not rule littoral warfare out just yet.
Visby actually makes sense though, it's decently armed and isn't trying to do 9 different things.
That being said, the new frigates make a lot more sense for the US who can generally leave littoral duties to the coast guard.
>Visby actually makes sense though, it's decently armed
u w0t?
>the US who can generally leave littoral duties to the coast guard
The absolutely dumbest fricking thing yet
>u w0t?
For it's size anon.
It has almost the same armament as the LCS-classes.
Visby-class:
> 640 tons
> 1 × Bofors 57 mm Mk3
> 8 × RBS15 Mk2 anti-ship missiles
> 4 × 400 mm torpedo launchers
Freedom-class:
> 3,500 tons
> 1 × BAE Systems Mk 110 57 mm gun, 400 rounds in turret and two ready service magazines with 240 rounds each.
> 1 x Mk 49 launcher with 21 × RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Surface-to-Air Missiles
> 4 × .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns
> 8 x RGM-184A Naval Strike Missiles
It might get a 150kw laser upgrade at some point, AFAIK all of the original mission module weapons have been cancelled (Hellfires, 30mm cannons, etc)
Independence-class:
> ~2,500-3,400 tons
> 1 × BAE Systems Mk 110 57 mm gun
> 1 × Raytheon SeaRAM CIWS
> 4 × .50-cal guns (2 aft, 2 forward)
> 8 × RGM-184A Naval Strike Missiles
and again as with the Freedom-class, all mission module weapons were cancelled afaik.
So they've got CIWS and some .50 cals that the Visby doesn't have. But they weigh 3-5x as much. Also, gen 2 Visbys are supposed to have long range surface to air missiles to take part in NATO air defense strategy.
Note that the Freedom class also has an issue with the 57mm: it can *only* be operated in manual (joystick) mode. There is no gunfire control radar installed. Since the USN likes the 57mm over 76mm and 127mm primarily for its CIWS capability, this is something of a problem.
Also, aside from the long-cancelled NLOS-LS, most weapons were always intended to be deployed from the helo and UAV. ASW? Helo. MCM? Helo. SUW? The helo helps out. And yet, the aircraft complement is one single Seahawk plus (in theory) a Firescout-sized UAV, which means that there will be significant periods of time when the only helo is down for maintenance. Why? Because one of the other "new concepts" that produced LCS was to reduce costs by dramatically reducing manning, and helo dets aren't small.
>Since the USN likes the 57mm over 76mm and 127mm primarily for its CIWS capability, this is something of a problem
That's more of a last option though.
The SeaRAM is the primary CIWS.
>The SeaRAM is the primary CIWS.
Agreed; however, the Mk 110--IF it has a GFCS capable of targeting radar tracks--should be far superior to Ye Olde Phalanx.
>They are putting the same 57mm on the Constellation (new frigate). Thoughts?
I can see where they're going with the concept--combining the gun and the Phalanx (both of which are not commonly used no matter how much the old salts claim otherwise) into a single mount saves a fair bit of money, topside weight, and deck space. However, I still feel a bit leery about it, considering that 127mm gives you far more range and HE fill, and it's far from obsolete when you consider that things like the M1156 PGK, which could easily be incorporated into a naval mount, or the work done on a 5" version of the HVP designed for the railgun project, neither of which would make much sense for the 57mm.
I think the main issue with the 127 is the Navy really wanting to still focus on boat/drone swarm threats and less on shore bombardment. You might still see a 127 on the upcoming DDG-X (assuming it actually happens this time) but personally I think with the proliferation of anti-ship missiles, UAS threats, and also potentially USV and UUVs has made hostile coast is more dangerous than ever. I think the 57mm should act more in the line of an additional CIWS layer together with SeaRam and any directed energy weapons the develop on the high kilowatt/megawatt range is feasible.
IMO if you want the shore bombardment capability then a dedicated USV that's cheap, reliable, and is just packing a 127 and maybe a Phalanx/SeaRam is enough. Then you can afford more guns to generate higher volume and you don't care as much about attrition. 127mm with PGK is def not obsolete I just think the platform should evolve and manned surface combatants can use that deck space for something to deal with the bigger threats like sea skimmers etc.
>MCM? Helo
Its also supposed to use the Knifefish UUV and CUSV. They were also supposed to play a big role in the ASW too before that module got dropped (thank you very much Freedom-class).
>the aircraft complement is one single Seahawk plus (in theory) a Firescout-sized UAV
There are actually two types/sizes of Firescout and it can 2 of one of them (or a single of the other). Also, the LCSs can actually "operate" more than that but that's all they have hanger space to service at one time, manned helo included.
>Note that the Freedom class also has an issue with the 57mm: it can *only* be operated in manual (joystick) mode
First I'm hearing of this. Where did you hear this from?
You're right that its not great for CIWS but its actually a lot better for AA then most give it credit for or realize.
>You're right that its not great for CIWS but its actually a lot better for AA then most give it credit for or realize.
Oh I agree, I was more just replying to his claim that it being manually controlled was a huge problem for CIWS when in reality it wouldn't be used for CIWS unless shit had hit the fan in which case you're probably fricked regardless.
But yeah, the 57mm is honestly pretty solid and I agree with the US's choice of 57mm over 76mm for the primary naval gun of the modern escort fleet. Destroyers with their 127mm still makes some sense I suppose.
>it wouldn't be used for CIWS unless shit had hit the fan in which case you're probably fricked regardless.
You're not wrong but I'd still like to have that option available as a last resort fallback if it comes to it. Besides, assuming he's right about this issue (still hoping he'll pop back with a link or something) the lack of more advanced integration is a loss for more than just CIWS use. But, this is the Freedom-class afterall which has been an absolute albatross on the LCS program so no surprise there.
>Destroyers with their 127mm still makes some sense I suppose.
They are putting the same 57mm on the Constellation (new frigate). Thoughts?
>They are putting the same 57mm on the Constellation
Seems fine, it's got missiles for primary CIWS and air defense, as well as long range land attack or anti-ship missiles. The 57mm is really just for cheap intimidation (fire a few shots at pirates to scare them into surrendering) or for cheap shore bombardment, as well as backup CIWS/Air defense.
Constellation-class is honestly really exciting capabilities for its price, it has got most of the capabilities of a modern burke at half the cost and 30% lower manning. Sure it has got a fair fewer VLS cells, but if you dedicate most of those VLS cells for ESSMs and have it run escort role for a CSG paired with DDGs, you've now allowed your DDGs to focus more VLS cells on BMD missiles, TLAMs, etc instead of short-range air defense missiles (ESSMs) to protect the CSG.
A lot more useful than the LCS-classes at least.
>A lot more useful than the LCS-classes at least.
We'll see
They've got VLS cells, you could park them in port 24/7/365 and they'd be more useful than the LCS-classes.
>Why is the navy not just building comeercial cargo ships stacked to the gills with VLS cells if its the only measure of value for a ship? Why is no country doing this? Is it possible your priorities are miscalculated?
What do you think LUSVs are?
Constellation also has a lot more in the way of ASW sensors, processing power, and manning than LCS had. The primary on-board sensor--the now-cancelled AN/SQS-62--apparently never worked like it was supposed to, with the result that not only has the LCS's ASW module been cancelled, but Thales has walked away with the tail contract for Constellation.
Look into it, it actually worked for the Independence class just fine for years. The issue was the wake from the Freemdom class fricking with it. So they kept making changes and trying to get it to work and the Indi passed the tests but couldn't be certified due to the organization of the LCS program requiring either both to be certified or neither. Its literally fricking absurd and I wish they'd just split the classes already as its continually been an issue. One of them is a complete failure and one is an cutting edge ship with design quirks that can be worked around to be very useful.
Locksneed-Shartin strikes again!
>First I'm hearing of this. Where did you hear this from?
From discussions with a bunch of (mostly active-duty or recently-retired) USN officers back when the LCS was still being designed and laid down. It was an open issue even way back then. There is no equivalent to the Mark 92 or Mark 86 GFCS fitted, and COMBATSS-21 (at least the version installed initially) did not include any capability to be aimed using the TRS-3D. During trials, the gun was only tested against surface targets using the EO/IR sensor and the joystick. Note that this was also rumored to be part of the reason why the Mk 110s were dropped from the DDG-1000 in favor of a pair of 30mm Bushmasters (also joystick-only, and much lighter).
Now... that information is well over a decade old at this point. I have never heard anything to suggest that the situation has changed; however, seeing as how COMBATSS-21 is going to be used on *both* LCS classes going ahead (which I hadn't realized until just now)--and the Constellation class as well--it's entirely possible that LockMart has coded in the capability to fire the gun at radar tracks from non-SPY radars in the years since then. I would be tickled pink to learn if that's true, as this issue has been a burr under my saddle for over a decade now.
>Their most useful characteristic is that they're large enough to operate helicopters.
Their least useful characteristic is that they decided to give them enough space to operate helicopters, and then allotted the entire goddamn back half of the ship to that purpose. LCS would be extremely capable if half kept these helipads for anti-submarine operations and the other half gutted the helipad in favor of a frickhuge array of vertically launched drones and missiles.
The second least useful characteristic is their lack of an integral SPY-7, so they'd have to use teeny SPY-1F if they are converted for the "budget Aegis" role. On the plus side, they are small enough that they can reasonably serve as detachments to provide anti-aircraft support close to the shore without compromising a CSG.
>Oversized corvettes
They aren't oversized for the ship type, its just that most countries that build corvs do so on the super cheap and thus generally have smaller boats. Go back and look at corvs from ww2 and see these are just a bit larger which is perfectly in line with the general increase in size of all types since then (probably even less so).
>being frigate-sized
Seriously, they aren't large, not nearly frigates.
>but they barely have any weapons.
This was questionable from the onset and is certainly no longer true.
>They have roughly the armament of a coast guard cutter with slightly better defensive capabilities
Holy shit where do you people get this horse shit from?
>Bad for nearly anything else.
Please
>Seriously, they aren't large, not nearly frigates.
Pic related is a La Fayette class frigate which is a similar size and displacement to the LCSs.
>This was questionable from the onset and is certainly no longer true.
Bolting 8 NSMs on the front does not fundamentally change things. They have no real VLS cells which is incredibly limiting in every regard. It means no ESSMs, no ASROCs, no SM2s. This is why their armament capabilities aren't that different from a legend class cutter, which you can also bolt NSMs onto if you really want. The fricking VLS hellfires are useful to absolutely no-one and shouldn't even be counted. If they had been built with space for even 8 tactical length VLS things would be completely different and they could have been transitioned into a capable small surface combatant, but they weren't so here we are.
LCS are theoretically ideal for hunting diesel electric submarines in an environment where surface/air threat is covered. Open up the throttle to 50 knots and laugh at any torpedo.
>La Fayette class frigate
A budget frigate designed in the 80s? This you thnk is a good indication of your position? How about the fact that its being replaced by a frigate called "intermediate size frigate" that is 25% larger? Kinda gives the impression that the La Fayette is small for the type.
>Bolting 8 NSMs on the front does not fundamentally change things
You're an idiot, got it. What's your next point?
>They have no real VLS cells which is incredibly limiting in every regard
So your logic is ship value is solely tied to number of VLS cells? This is the same idiocy as the cannon caliber races in the 20th century. Bravo.
>This is why their armament capabilities aren't that different from a legend class cutter
Kinda missing a few major things aren't you?
>which you can also bolt NSMs onto if you really want
Except you can't for a couple of reasons but even if you could it still doesn't have them and thus your original point is false by your own admission. Also interesting that you picked the largest most heavily armed cutter class in the world (I think) as you example of an avergae Coast Guard cutter. Real good faith.
>The fricking VLS hellfires are useful to absolutely no-one and shouldn't even be counted.
You already adequately demonstrated you were an idiot to me, you don't need to repeat yourself.
>A budget frigate designed in the 80s
A frigate is, in fact, a frigate
>So your logic is ship value is solely tied to number of VLS cells?
No, but the inability to operate entire classes of defensive and offensive weapons is a bit of an issue. It leaves you with limited options for both attacking and defending yourself. Having to almost entirely rely on a RAM launcher for your AA is not ideal for a ship of this size.
>Except you can't for a couple of reasons
They've done it in the past without issues. The Legend class is perfectly capable of hosting a few deck mounted missiles. The navy has explicitly discussed adding harpoon launchers to the Legend class in the past.
>A frigate is, in fact, a frigate
Way to not enage with the point. I accept your concession on this.
>No, but the inability to operate entire classes of defensive and offensive weapons is a bit of an issue
It has "entire classes of defensive and offensive weapons" that other (larger) ships don't have. Are they now worthless as well by that logic?
>Having to almost entirely rely on a RAM launcher for your AA is not ideal for a ship of this size.
Why? Would the solution have been to make the ship larger and more expensive in order to have more of the type of AA you want? Would you then not complain even louder that it was undergunned for its size and a moneysink?
>The navy has explicitly discussed adding harpoon launchers to the Legend class in the past.
How far did you look into that? Because there were some serious obstacles to getting that to work and those were just Harpoons. This isn't just a matter of having enough open space on the main deck where a missile launcher could physically sit.
Why? Would the solution have been to make the ship larger and more expensive in order to have more of the type of AA you want? Would you then not complain even louder that it was undergunned for its size and a moneysink?
I would have built a a direct replacement to the OHP guided missile frigates, which is what we neglected to do in favor of the LCSs for way too fricking long.
> Harpoons. This isn't just a matter of having enough open space on the main deck where a missile launcher could physically sit!
Literally is and they literally did exactly that with Harpoons on the Iowas. You'd better sit this one out if you didn't know that.
He’s going to sit here and claim the shipyard told the navy they need 500 billion dollars to launch a feasibility study on the stability effects of putting a few missile launchers on the vast, open space of the LCS’s.
90% of the trooning out about how ships “cannot do” something is the MIC b***hing for more money and refusing to hire more workers or open new yards. This is the entire premise of the argument that the US “can’t” build 2 subs per year.
Are you the designer or sponsor of this fantastic class of warship as well?
Not him, but there are currently no real alternatives to VLS for ship-based ASW or AAW beyond CIWS ranges (triple-tubes, RAM). If you want ESSM or ASROC, much less SM2(IIIC)/SM6, you need VLS.
>How about the fact that its being replaced by a frigate called "intermediate size frigate" that is 25% larger? Kinda gives the impression that the La Fayette is small for the type.
there are no actual tonnage sizes for different classes, youve been lied to. this is why ticonderogas (cruisers) can be built on spruance (destroyer) hulls etc. etc.
but even if there were tonnage limits, the FFG(X) is heavier than the previous frigate because.... all american warships are getting heavier. the DDG(X) is also much heavier than current destroyers and the CG(X) program was like double the weight of current cruisers when it was still a thing.
>good faith
oh youre just moronic and know nothing about warships i see
Literally Democraft LCS israelite on this board. Fricking hell
antipiracy and drug busting are important jobs though. the modern global economy is based on US dominating and patrolling the global oceans for 60 years noe to prevent piracy and to stop small dickhead countries from just yoinking shipping freighters. Supercarriers can't be everywhere at once and its a waste of money to have supercarriers and larger boats dealing with smalltime pirates. Leave destroyers and carriers for fighting actual navies.
I'm sure a cutter with a few M2s does the job just as well for a fraction of the cost. Pirates and narcos are not known for being particularly well-armed, armored, or disciplined.
yeah i kinda figured that out the more i looked at it. No reason to have this massive expensive capabilities including stealth for chronic pirates or narcos bullshit. And if a shithole country with a shit navy does decide to cause shenanigans, the cost of deploying destroyer and frigates to the area and destriying their navy is cheaper than building and upkeeping these $500M ships that arent very useful in a nearpeer fight.
weren't they meant to have railguns and shit but the program got slashed?
Zumwalt was going to MAYBE get railguns some day.
The US railgun program was scraped, BUT japan has recently invited the US to participate in THEIR new railgun project, which is seemingly about a railgun for missile defense not shore bombardment (what the US wanted a railgun for).
But yeah, japan says they figured out the barrel ware issues the US was having, at least for smaller caliber stuff (suitable for BMD/HCM/HGM intercepts)
I used to hear them test-firing that fat b***h over at Dahlgren back in the early 2010s. I was so hyped.
Yeah the good news is railguns might be back on the menu, just smaller than we had imagined.
The wear issue was due to the caliber, supposedly they could also squeeze near rail gun velocities out of cheaper standard barrels with new propellants. I assume the japs want to pilfer that HVP research as well.
The railgun and HVP systems were killed by politics and doctrine since both were meeting their projected goals ahead of schedule. A number foreign buyers for both interceptor system and some revitalized bombardment system could actually make these homosexuals start taking shit seriously and drop the unit price via continuous mass production. However I still wouldn't hold my breath for the bombardment system since they will need foreign buyers, the US supposedly decided that supersonic cruise missiles loaded with cluster munitions better fit requirements than a single really fast chunk of metal or even a homosexual of metal rods that split before impact.
literally just put a couple of HIMARS on the back deck
>Freedom-class
ew
not a bad idea
Are they littoral ships because they are littorally useless?
convert the helipad into a huge VLS stack
You know how militaries are always fighting the last war? This is the navy designing a ship for GWOT / An Iran war that never came and forgetting that naval procurement takes a decade or more.
The pivot back to the Pacific means these have very little role to play.
It's figurative combat ships now.
They wanted figurative combat ships instead.
They should make the Canadians buy them.
They were dumb enough to buy those rust bucket subs from the Brits so these would be a perfect fit for them.
They decided to upgrade from N64 graphics. We're on Gamecube now.
What's the actual purpose of these things? Are they expecting to fight peer-level enemies along America's coastlines?
They were expected to fight swarms of iranian motorboats in the persian gulf
Theyre useless for everything else, especially the near peer conflict with china the usn is now preparing for, hence why theyre being gotten rid of
>Theyre useless for everything else, especially the near peer conflict with china the usn is now preparing for, hence why theyre being gotten rid of
Holy shit I don't get how willfully ignorant you people insist on being
What do you mean "you people"?
Majority of posters in this thread.
>What's the actual purpose of these things?
Surface warfare, ISR, speciality supply, ASW, MCM, escort, and flying the flag
No mumbo jumbo. In real terms, what the frick LCS gon do against the Chinese Navy, Air Force, and Rocket Force?
Not your anon and only speaking about one of the classes. For the love all that is holy, please understand that the LCS ships are not the same.
>Chinese Navy
The overwhelming majority of the ships in the PLAN are small, easily counterable by a current Independence-class, much less any future additional armaments.
>Air Force, and Rocket Force
Its purpose is not to directly engage those assets but is hardly vulnerible to them. I never see anyone talking about the stealth/reduced RCS characteristics despite it being one of its greatest qualities. Additionally the NULKA has seen limited use but appears to be incredibly effective. Finally, that speed isn't just for show; it makes the craft incredibly difficult to hit with OTH munitions, particularly in combination with the obscene manuevarability.
Oh and I've heard about this but still waiting to find out how feasible it is
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2017-01-12-Lockheed-Martin-s-Latest-Electronic-Warfare-System-for-Helicopters-to-Safeguard-U-S-Navy-Against-Anti-Ship-Missile-Threats
Assuming it works well, then the INdi is gonna excel at it.
In short, navies don't just build one class of a ship that is "the best," they build a variety to handle a wide array of mission types. Anyone asking why it doesn't have "bigger guns" (read VLS cells) is missing the point and either ignorant (or intentionally playing dumb) of the soft power it does exert. Its a small, fast low-crewed, hard to find, harder to hit intelligence platform and priority support. Sure, you could sink it, but at what cost? When the USN is running 2 or 3 CSGs all over shit do you want to dedicate your patrol ships chasing after this shit and half of your batteries dumping salvos into empty water hoping to get lucky and outnumber the odds?
Last point: This is not a OHP replacement, anyone upset that it doesn't match up isn't paying attention. The Constellation is your lady there.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-china-modernizing-its-navy-0
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a40980913/china-to-have-bigger-navy-by-2030/
https://news.usni.org/2022/11/29/pentagon-chinese-navy-to-expand-to-400-ships-by-2025-growth-focused-on-surface-combatants
I haven't yet openned your links as I'm unsure what point it is you are trying to make. If you want to talk with me about this (even disagree) that's fine but I'm not interested by just being assigned homework by some rando.
tl;dr: What about these links?
China's navy is larger in total ships, will nearly be double that of US by the end of 2030, if China doesnt increase their budget. They're already a good 30% larger in navy.
China's naval tonnage is ~1/2 that of US today, but that gap will close as the decade comes to an end.
Okay...Maybe I'm misunderstanding here (seriously, my bad if I am), but I don't think I said anything about the PLAN having less ships than the USN nor anything about the total tonnage.
The closest comment I can think I made to that is pointing out that most of the ships in the PLAN are relatively small (corvettes, frigates, and missile boats). Do you feel that is a false statement?
Difference in combat role. The smaller ships are for guarding their borders, while the US's larger is to navigate the more expansive ocean. The difference doesn't really matter too much because the functionalities are same minus the roles.
>Difference in combat role.
A topic I didn't touch or bring up in the slightest.
WHO ARE YOU ARGUING WITH? ARE THEY IN THE ROOM WITH US NOW?
It matters because you seem to be downplaying their advantages because of "smaller" ships argument. Which is nonsense for the given near future scenario. The more ship they have, the more coverage, the faster they can deploy, the more they can have effective blockades. Given their large arsenel of submarines and "smaller" ships as a means to both a bait and switch, the threat of a blockade is very much real.
>It matters because you seem to be downplaying their advantages because of "smaller" ships argument
No argument was made you. Please engage with the topic and not what ever scarecrow is spooking you. I just pointed out that the PLAN has the majority of their number counted in smaller ship types. I ask once more: Is that a false statement?
Not asking if that is bad, just if it is true.
>small ships for guarding local shores have no operational overlap with one literally named "littoral combat ship"
wew lad
Hypothetically speak, if you didn't eat breakfast this morning how would you feel?
who would buy them? what would they be used for?
Assuming they don't gut all the electronics all at once, Freedom-class could sell to the Italians to replace the rest of their aging Maestrale-class frigates, since it would be much cheaper than getting more FREMM ($300 million ea vs €600 million ea). Alternatively, LM might refurbish and resell them as MMSC to the Saudis, they've been begging for permission to do so for years.
Independence might go to SINKEX though, too niche for anyone else.
neat thanks anon
Why would the pastas go for some underperforming sloppy seconds, instead of full-spec Thaon di Revels?
I don't know, maybe because they cost twice as much and Italy is unlikely to ever fight another naval battle in its history? LCS would give the capacity at an affordable cost, not every country needs to have fully tricked out frigates for their entire fleet when they just want like 4 or 5 extra ASW frigates to patrol high priority coasts (which is why the US buying LCS was so weird strategically in the first place)
this exact calculus is why they still have Maestrale despite previously saying they'd decommission them for FREMM already
They may be twice as expensive, but they're also twice as capable. They're genuine medium frigates, with proper armament and, just as important, sensors (capable of guiding Aster 30s). The only things the LCS offer are high speed and an oversized Osprey-capable helicopter deck (which is useless to the Italians).
Heck, in terms of raw combat capability, the LCS are worse than even the Doha class. The US genuinely doesn't know how to build efficient small combatants. Even teh joos went with ThyssenKrupp for their Sa'ar 6 corvettes.
money Italy spends on FREMMs stays totally or partly in Italy and creates Italian jobs
you need some remedial Perun about procurement strategies
What happened is we stopped fighting in the Persian Gulf forever.
they were designed to patrol the persian/arab gulf and provoke a war with Iran but most the later administrations didnt want this
fleecing the government for failed military projects.
shocker.
I have no real bone in this fight, but the anon arguing that these things are fine and everyone else (including the navy) is moronic for the intense criticism of both the workmanship and lack of usefulness these things provided is simply bizzare.
They are awful ships, without a clear purpose, that do almost everything they’re supposed to do at an astronomically higher cost and weight than what other platforms could be doing. They are ridiculously undergunned and under protected. This is objectively fact, you can whine about it and claim you have better information but at the end of the day, they aren’t survivable.
All that being said, had the design quality been good enough to operate these things in an ASW role at 45 knots, that would be cool, but they can’t even do that. There shouldn’t be another dollar spent on these, every cent for the next decade spent on the LCS should be centered around retiring them as fast as possible and earmarking more shipyards for Constellations.
What a bizarre contrarian take that anon has.
>that these things are fine and everyone else (including the navy) is moronic for the intense criticism
>They are awful ships, without a clear purpose
Is it possible there is a middle ground? Is your thinking really that binary?
not that anon.
but the ships literally do not work.
the drive doesnt work and they were limited to like 5 knots.
the modular weapons dont work either.
and now that the mission has changed from "crushing sand people for the benefit of israelites" to "actually dealing with americas real enemies" the ships are completely worthless. IIRC they dont have any VLS, correct me if im wrong on that tho.
These are cool counterpoints to things I never said.
>not that anon.
lol
lmao even
Not those anons, but you sound like a b***h
My thinking isn’t binary, it’s just unclouded by the crushing feeling of needing to be a contrarian. It’s okay to call a spade a spade and not beat around the bush. When something is a piece of shit, why cover for it?
>we want to goto war with iran.
>billions spent on shit ships that dont work to fight a shit country.
>oh wait, thats moronic, neocons are moronic, and the israel lobby is moronic.
>china is the real threat
>shit ships are worthless against real countries.
>billions wasted
just another decade in the US navy and MIC
at least they realized it was stupid as opposed to doubling down
>at least they realized it was stupid as opposed to doubling down
i legitimately believe that the neocons intentionally sabotaged the military to prevent us from confronting china.
Wut, why? That would be in direct contravention to neoconservative foreign policy thinking.
>Wut, why? That would be in direct contravention to neoconservative foreign policy thinking.
not really.
they were pursuing "engagement" with china instad of military. additionally, neocons are heavily sorrupted by globalist corporations that are heavily invested in china.
>neocons are heavily corrupted by globalist corporations that are heavily invested in china.
This so, so much this.
>they were pursuing "engagement" with china instad of military
They were pushing for the opposite. A strong military buildup to ensure American military hegemony.
>neocons are heavily corrupted by globalist corporations
I’m no sure if you can call them corrupted if they’ve had a strong corporatist streak from the beginning.
im sorry?
was it not the neocons and clinton that let china into the WTO?
and was it not the neocons that pissed away 20 years in the middle east for zero benefit while china became a peer competitor?
am i remembering that correctly? or did i wake up in the bizarro dimension?
pic related.
wasted money.
The neocons didn’t piss away 20 years in the Middle East. That started in the Obama years culminating to today. It was an is a strategically vital location and especially pre-fracking was a crucial part of the worlds oil supply. I don’t know if you’ve looked at a map but a continued presence in Afghanistan would have given us a steppingstone right into China’s hinterland, allowing us to pulverize them for both sides. We did decide to give that up for zero strategic benefit, but that was over the protestations from the neocons.
As for the WTO, the assumption was that we could collapse the Chinese the same way we did the Soviets. Even by the early 2000s this was starting to be looked at as an increasingly bad idea, but it was one that was always coupled with a overwhelming military superiority.
I’m not a neoconservative, the ideology has some serious problems. But back then they were absolutely the foreign policy hawks, Just because they made decisions that in hindsight 20 years later weren’t optimal doesn’t change that.
>The neocons didn’t piss away 20 years in the Middle East. That started in the Obama years culminating to today.
Obuttfricked was presidunce in 2002/2003? Destroying Iraq was a neocon core directive. 9/11 was used as a pretext for that.
Destroyer Iraq was a strategically sound decision for all that it was mishandled. The situation didn’t go off the rails in Iraq and Afghanistan until the Obama years.
>Nixon and Clinton were NeoCons
absolutely brain dead and ignorant.
democrats fully embraced china at all costs, being ready to tolerate their system and had a massive campaign against cons for not doing the same. You might be actually insane
Nixon was the president that made the call to normalize relations with communist china. Biden has objectively been one of the most adversarial presidents on the China question for decades. Corporate elites(on both sides of politics) want continued open access to the Chinese market. The problem is China is going to start cutting into to markets that US elites need to dominate, and that is a problem, hence the push to prepare for a war with China.
>Biden has objectively been one of the most adversarial presidents on the China question for decades.
Just like his predecessor?
Actions speak much louder than words
Your really going to pretend that the democrats didnt and torpeado any and all legislation and exec+utive orders aimed at China?
You really think the rest of us dont notice the forced amnesia?
Bush the Lesser kowtowed to the bugmen on several occasions, including that incident where a bugtard rammed a US patrol plane.
No, they hate China, they're just moronic.
I'm litttorally shipping
Paint them white and sell them at a discount to the coast guard I promise they'll be happy with them
The coasties have much better ships though.
gentlemen,
the arsenal ship
Japan is going for a small one
~200 VLS cells is the current rumor
Allowing more of the smaller DDGs to have less BMD missiles and more anti-ship/anti-air/ground attack missiles.
forgot pic
Nice. Hoping they name them Yamato and Musashi.
>~200 VLS
come on japan, double it, you know you want to.
>When the current meta is "Distributed Firepower" to make chink ASBM spam much more costly.
>Japs want to concentrate almost 200 VLS into a single ship
I see Japs have learnt nothing from their defeats in WW2
It's far more costly to spread 200 VLS into multiple ships that have the same self-defense and endurance capabilities.
Jew. Building fewer, more capable ships is not the reason they lost. In fact, it's the best thing they could've done.
It's the perfect vessel for pearl harbor style sucker punch attacks
this shit looks like what my useless teammates in Nebulous bring to the fight
US might want to sell some to NATO members now that it's going full blue navy again while Baltic and Black Seas are going bo become hotter
christ people like you are such insufferable c**ts
yes, the country that invented basketball is going to have a fricking basketball hoop strapped to any possible surface
have fun playing gayball on a rolling ship, homosexual, maybe when you dive over from a stiff breeze you won't fall overboard
basketball was invented in canada
They should've just bought the Hyuga-class.
>the frick happened?
They're
1.) Expensive
2.) Worthless
LCS is fudd and should be repurposed to launch hypersonic missiles or PrSM spiral 2 from the helicopter deck
I thought you were joking, but I think I see a fricking hoop. What's the green square upper left of hangar door?
that's where the HCO sits, you goofball
>navy officers beg for goverment money to build such needed ships
>navy officers steal some money for them and their families
>jk citizens, we dont need them
>sell ships and steal some money for them and their families
They wanted to fight endless terrorism against middle east.
Instead what we got was China's rise. China's 2 aricraft carrier strike groups are operational right now. It will soon double within the next few years.
>China's 2 aricraft carrier strike groups are operational right now.
Are they? When they scrambled up their recent "demonstration exercises" around Taiwan where was the full CSG? They had like 2 ships with the carrier (I think one was even just a fuel ship). Besides, even the Chinese publically that the oldest is just for training and not intended for action, so its a bit much to say they have 2 CSGs.
Black person worship has reached a point that they are using taxpayer money to put basketball courts on boats
The Navy is rich and moronic.
They have no imagination to use these in new ways.
Squadron them in littoral areas around Maritime choke points and use them…in squadrons…to mog any enemy capital ships trying to transit from one ocean to another.
Push the transit into deeper waters where our fast attack subs can have at them.
The sine qua non of Naval Warfare is MOBILITY.
If you can limit that feature, you have interdicted the battle space in your favor.
The Navy has forgotten this in favor of intersectional Queer Theory and Marxism.
The LCS program was a failure. The designs proved to be finnicky and unreliable. Now we're just building new frigates instead.
What went wrong with the Navy that they have only pursued useless projects like LCS and Zumwalts or ruined other ones like the F-35 this century?
Lack of a real opponent after the cold war.
A number of things, actually.
*The Peace Dividend(tm) downsized most of the civilian DoD staff who worked in procurement. The manufacturers went through massive layoffs and multiple rounds of consolidation at the same time. Most of the folks who knew how to properly manage a procurement program were let go, and most of those skillsets have never been properly replaced.
*After ODS, DoD had no idea what to plan for next. There was a general assumption that it was "the end of history", and that threats would be limited to mostly minor powers (particularly, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or "some darn fool thing in the Balkans", all of which were active threats in the '90s).
*There wasn't a lot of perceived need for blue-water naval power, so the USN got asked a lot of pointed questions (including by Congress) of how exactly they planned to contribute to the small, land-based wars that were anticipated. With the final retirement of the Iowas, Congress mandated that the USN find a way to replace their shore bombardment capability. Tomcats were retired in favor of more Hornets; TLAMs became ubiquitous. Emphasis was placed on supporting expeditionary warfare (years before 9/11).
*As a result of all of the above, Rumsfeld and his bean-counters came in and rolled the dice on using advanced new technologies in order to reduce costs (particularly, head-count, because people are *expensive*), so that the US could still somehow manage to maintain its commitments on an ever-shrinking budget.
The result is DDG-1000. LCS. FCS. Comanche and its replacement programs ARH and AAS all being cancelled due to budget cuts. Crusader being cancelled for FCS NLOS-C, which then got cancelled without replacement, leaving the US with aging M109s for another 20+ years. And, yes, it also led to the dumpster-fire that was the early years of F-35's procurement, before a new team came in and got everything more or less straightened out.
Jews, blacks, communism, and women.
Unironically Global War on Terror.
>>hey we need a bunch of littoral combat ships
, no we don't
the US realized its utterly fricking futile to attempt to invade Taiwan to block China from rescuing from the clutches of homosexual liberal fascists
China will instaneously surround Taiwan, blockade it, and amputate the American parasite for good.
Taiwan will not only THANK China for it, but they will actively help cut the US cancer off too.
Cant wait to see China and the PLN FRICKING SHAME the US by pushing them out of Guam with hypersonic missiles
the US is in absolutely hysterical, pathetic free-fall, on its way to rock-absolute-bottom
>Cant wait
You'll have to.
2 more centuries.
they decided metaphorical combat ships would be more cost-effective
Australia needs more surface combatants in the water ASAP, particularly ASW hunter killers with speed and teeth enough to protect themselves. What if they bought a couple of near-new Independence class boats, and used them to operate VTOL UAVs? The island chains around Indonesia & Malaysia seem like the ideal kind of environment for them, really. It mostly depends on how much the USN is wanting to sell them for.
Freedom class vs Independence class. which class is better?
Indy, no contest. The propulsion issues alone disqualify Freedom, since that's basically 90% of the popular criticism of the whole program.
Propulsion issues are already fixed, but the Independence looks cooler and has a bit better range.
A bit more than better. 4300 versus 3500 nautical miles, at the same cruise speed.
Also, as anon mentioned here
, the Freedumb class was completely unsuitable for integrating the very equipment that was initially intended for it.
Freedom because at least it looks like a proper warship.
Who would buy these shit heaps?
why build a shitty corvette when you can build a drone carrier?
richer than iran