https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/navy-wants-to-sell-off-six-nearly-new-littoral-combat-ships
There are worse ideas.
Fund it.
Transfer the LCS to Ukraine.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/navy-wants-to-sell-off-six-nearly-new-littoral-combat-ships
There are worse ideas.
Fund it.
I'd be happy to entertain the idea that these ships are being put out specifically to line them up for re-equipping the Ukrainian Navy later down the line but those are some pricey boats.
>navy-wants-to-sell-off-six-nearly-new-littoral-combat-ships
But why?
>these ships are being put out
What's the catch?
>What's the catch?
Ukrainian Navy will have modern ships so it can police the Black Sea? if Ukraine gets into NATO when the war is over then the Black Sea will only touch NATO and Russia
No, I said: what's the catch, for buying something from the USN that it wants to quickly get rid of?
oh, my mistake. Honestly I'm not sure there is a catch. The LCS program hasn't really worked out, and they don't exactly want to scrap a bunch of barely used ships, and Ukraine will need ships, so I feel like it's more a convenient way for the US Navy to offload something it doesn't want with a positive spin of "we're helping our ally re-equip their fleet to defend their shores!" or something.
Realistically I don't think they'll do anything with the LCS ships but for the sake of entertaining OP's premise I can see some ways it could be spun to that end.
>What's the catch?
The LCS sucks
>The LCS
Please, just shut up if you have no idea what you are talking about.
He's right
>However, the class has been hampered by continued debates as to the suitability of the type in high-threat or contested environments. The office of the US Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, which advises the US Department of Defense, stated in its FY2023 report that the survivability of the LCS was “challenged in a contested environment against selected kinetic threat types”, while viability for operations in cyber-contested environments was “currently unknown”.
Furthermore, both the Freedom and Independence LCS variants remained “operationally unsuitable due to low reliability and availability caused by propulsion failures”.
https://www.naval-technology.com/features/was-the-us-navys-littoral-combat-ship-a-mistake/
>What's the catch?
They suck dick.
I actually hope they do give them to Ukraine so I can watch them get blown up and jerk off wildly
>implying ukraine can afford to maintain them
>implying these ships last even when maintained
galvanic corrosion says "Lol, LMAO"
3M22 Zircon says lol, LMAO
Why even waste missiles on ships that will sink themselves in a few more years?
It has to actually exist outside of early prototypes anon. I'd say the chances of Russia actually being able to complete it now in the next few decades is pretty low.
>russian simps say that Western tech from 1990 is "wunderwaffe"
>only ever fricking blab on about "wunderwaffe" like the T14, Zircon, etc
>Russia has super ultra advanced weaponry that completely overmatches everything Ukraine and the West have!!!!!!!
Then why the frick haven't they used them in the war? Are they expecting to use them for the last ditch defense of Moscow or something?
Absolute wunderwaffe vaporware
Maintenance and sustainment would probably be included in the deal if the US gave it to them.
#bringbackfireships
I don't think Ukraine would have the resources to run them. They're better off with the frigates they already contracted from Turkey and then once their own shipyards are repaired they can continue trying to produce their own ships.
Japan or Britain might get some use out of the LCS.
>Japan or Britain might get some use out of the LCS.
Japan wouldn't get much out of them as they essentially built a better LCS in the form of the Mogami class. The best the LCS could do is patrolling which would be easily handled by their future OPVs. I doubt Britain would want them either.
They need to get over their sunk costs fallacy and actually sink these worthless pieces of shit. At lest then they could serve a useful role as artificial reefs for the fishies.
>sunk costs
Heh
What a waste of tax payer money
They are the shittiest ships the US Navy has ever made, lol they can have em.
>cracks below the waterline in higher-stress areas of the structure
>restricted from travelling faster than 15 knots in sea state 4
>can not sail in sea state 5
>ill-suited for combat operations against anything but small, fast boats not armed with anti-ship missiles
>USN review "uncovered classified deficiencies" in the ship's cyberdefences and lacked robust communications systems
They wouldn’t even be able to get them into the Black Sea into after the war
>pirate LCS's roaming around the worlds oceans murdering vatnik cargo ships
Fund it.
In Korea, the Soviets provided state of the art jets along with "advisors" to train the Norks on how to use them. In the end, the advisors actually just flew combat missions themselves directly against the US. They later did the same thing in Vietnam, except with AA systems.
I say we follow their lead, except this time we "provide" Ukraine with a submarine, and have it frick up Russian shipping in the Pacific.
"Providing" a nuclear-powered submarine even on paper seems like a bridge too far and would almost certainly violate America's own export laws. It would be a better idea if America still had some diesel electric or AIP subs.
>tumblehome
well, there's less risk it will capsize in following seas in the Black Sea, thereby avoiding yet another ginourmous embarassment for the USN
Holy shit you are all fricking idiots
you specifically
>At least eight current and former officers, naval engineers and architects and naval analysts interviewed for this article expressed concerns about the ship's stability.
>One former flag officer, asked about DDG 1000, responded by putting out his hand palm down, then flipping it over. "You mean this?" he asked.
>Ken Brower, a civilian naval architect with decades of naval experience was even more blunt: "It will capsize in a following sea at the wrong speed if a wave at an appropriate wavelength hits it at an appropriate angle."
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2015/12/03/instability-questions-about-zumwalt-destroyer-are-nothing-new/
Yes, that is correct: I called you an idiot and I appreciate you making that blatantly apparen and leaving no room for any other possibilities.
>80 VLS cells, fewer than an Arleigh Burke
>ZERO (0) VLS
Literally what the hell were they thinking?
Meanwhile the chink Type 055 have 112 VLS cells. They obviously know which way the wind is blowing.
>what the hell were they thinking?
That they were designed as multipurpose support ships for littoral operations including mineclearing, amphibious and near coastal operations support, and sub hunting accompanied by other vessels then at some point down the line everyone started criticizing it for being unable to take down a Chinese naval task force on its lonesome. They're not good ships, but they're basically corvettes and should be criticized in comparison to other corvettes rather than a guided missile cruiser like the Type 055.
VLS belong on everything, even tugboats.
>they're basically corvettes and should be criticized in comparison to other corvettes rather than a guided missile cruiser like the Type 055.
Meanwhile in Finland....
>mfw year 2420: you in space onboard the Finnish death star Kosmos Korvetti XXXL Pekka
By them being completely different types of ships? The Freedom class is replacing them anyway and they're basically a Burke cut in half.
Technically they do have babby vls tubes for hellfire missiles. You could probably just park a couple of pic related on the flight deck and call it a day if you wanted some big boy anti ship missiles
fricking dumb idea. but, then again, i'm on /k/.
don't sabotage the Ukrainian navy
>Hey Zelenskyyye it's your problem now, don't say we didn't never gave you anything
Ukraine doesn't want them. They don't have any littorals.
Are they for public sale
@57973326
New low IQ for the day.
because a shitposter on a COUNTRY NOUN ACTION forum knows more about disastrous tumblehome designs than a naval architect and a bunch of sailors
they suck. we abandoned them with good reason, and one day we will find out they should have put an escape hatch in the bottom of the Zumwalt's hull
they would die in literally 20 minutes.
>they would die in literally 20 minutes.
You mean litorally
@57976411
Someone is very mad.
your thread is going to die since no one cares what you write about
wouldn't taiwan need these more?
Nah, Taiwan actually has a pretty solid navy, most of their ships are a little older but are more capable vessels.
Ukraine currently doesn't have a navy, so sending them 6 ready to sail Corvettes (LCS) would be a huge boost to their capabilities, even if they're not especially good boats. I would be curious about the viability of fitting them with Neptune Anti ship missiles.
The 57 mm gun on these is a swedish bofors, the mk1 version of this gun was water cooled, the mk2 and mk3 was not. This increased the rate of fire by 10% but massively degraded the burst rate length and sustained fire rate. The entire ship concept is a turd. It has the same basic arnament (1 gun and 8 small ASMs) as a 250 ton FAC from the 1980s but is 10 times larger.
Because it was designed as a multipurpose ship. Literally very little wrong with it. What, you want them to be slapping triple turret Green Maces on or the Swedish 120mm autocannon or something?
>Because it was designed as a multipurpose ship. Literally very little wrong with it.
The entire concept is moronic. And these ships are so lightly built because of the humongous speed requirement that they cannot handle the ship bending from waves.
Frick off, reformer.
moron Kun, the LCS is the reformer ship. Born out of hand wringing that Iran's teleporting fishing boats armed with silkworms would swamp the expensive US Navy cruisers and destroyers. So to counter that threat you need a fast cheap boat with no sophisticated electronics/weapon systems and a gun in order to destroy those speedboats price effectively,
No, the LCS is the future. You're the moron who wants to go back to battleships.
Multipurposes platform attempts by the US military have a history of under performance.
I still find it unbelievable that these things are worse then their jobs in every way versus ships a century old.
This with a helicopter pad is how you make something to fight in the littoral combat theater. Not some flimsy hunk of aluminum that would be popped like a balloon by a cutter.
I have been advocating for a year now that the U.S. donate a baker's dozen of our Ticonderogas that are now headed for decommissioning. We could fund Ukraine to build an entire industrial/military shipyard, a big one, and it's first primary function would be to get the Ticonderogas into top reconditioned state. The U.S. can donate all of its support manufacturing equipment and a few 'spare hulls' full of parts from the rest of our fleet and Ukraine would have some incredibly impressive ships for the next five decades.
As a return favor, Ukraine could use them for security patrols throughout the Mediterranean, secure the Black Sea, run regular missions into the Atlantic and through the Suez Canal out to Madagascar & Sri Lanka. Enormous potential for cooperation and mutual support with very high value to all sides. Worth every penny.
I also like the idea of the Littorals. No reason to choose ... do them both. Each ticonderoga could have at least one Littoral assigned to it ... plus maybe another boat or two ... and Ukraine would suddenly have at least four fleets, each built around a core of three Ticonderogas. Or any other mix-up required for any missions. Be nice to have an entire fleet like that swing through the South China Sea and visit Taiwan regularly.
>Ukraine having the funds to recommission and regularly operate a bakers dozen Ticos outside of it's local waters
>Implying the free equipment train will stop when the war ends
Funding a project like that pays for itself. In fact, the payout of having a Ukrainian Navy with four small fleets is almost beyond calculation. The impact on Black Sea, & Mediterranean security alone is worth it, and that is only the minimum value Ukraine would provide around the world for dozens of mission types. Incredibly cheap at the cost to have Ukraine as about the 4th largest & powerful navy on the planet. We could fund an entire Ukrainian Naval Academy with an engineering branch dedicated to optimizing warcraft under 10,000 tons ... exactly the treaty limits stipulated for navigating the Bosporus.
Yeah, it would require a lot of support for the first two decades, but it would sustain itself forever after that. It's stupid simple investment sense. It's insane NOT to do it.
>The impact on Black Sea, & Mediterranean security alone is worth it,
Ukraine provides nothing that Italy and Turkey don't already provide. Turkey can close the Black Sea from entry or exit at any time and it's basically the only reason they are in NATO. Italy has no issues patrolling the med and Suez area.
>Incredibly cheap at the cost to have Ukraine as about the 4th largest & powerful navy on the planet.
Lol if you think Ukraine is going to surpass the Royal Navy and JMSDF with a handful of Ticos.
>We could fund an entire Ukrainian Naval Academy with an engineering branch dedicated to optimizing warcraft under 10,000 tons ... exactly the treaty limits stipulated for navigating the Bosporus.
For what purpose do we pump billions upon billions of dollar to not only donate multiple ships and support systems, but also constantly pay upkeep in a dead theater? The Russian Navy is a joke and any activity can be handled by other NATO assets. It would be much more worthwhile to invest in the Philippines or Vietnam and actually have assets in a theater that matters. I really don't think you realize how expensive upkeep and operation of a bunch of aged Ticos is. It's not like you give them the ships and money to do initial repairs and all the problems go away. How will Ukraine pay for fuel, ammo, and routine maintenance. How will they pay to deploy the ships outside of the Black Sea? Prior to the invasion the Ukraine navy did jack shit with tiny patrol boats and you expect them to just move up to Ticos with 0 institutional knowledge even with US support? Just look at China with the 2nd largest navy and 2 air craft carriers. Even then there are legitimate doubts that China could effectively deploy their EMALS carrier due to lack of CATOBAR experience. Yet you think Ukraine can just move up to Ticos.
I should also point out the Kitty Hawks as another example. Aircraft carriers better than anything else US allies operate sold for 1 cent to be scrapped. Want to know why? Because ships are fricking expensive to operate especially old as shit ones and even if they give it away for free to an allied navy that doesn't solve operating costs.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kitty-hawk-1-cent-scrap-ebay-b1996695.html
Please look at the current condition of Ticos in SLEP, the associated costs and how long they take. All in an experienced active ship repair infrastructure.
Then stick to playing with your toy boats in the bathtub.
How about you just donate your own paycheck to Ukraine and frick off with these shill posts?
I've donated plenty, I just think it would be neat.
The Navy is getting rid of the earlier vessels which ended up being beta-tests. The newer ships of the class benefit from the fixes for problems present on the first batches.
The Navy likes the LCSs even though mission modularity was a failure for some reason. It allows them to do a lot of missions far more efficiently than larger vessels like the Burke. And watch this — I bet the cracking issue will end up being Austal (an Australian company) using Chinese steel.
> far more efficiently than larger vessels like the Burke
> Budget data obtained by the Defense News reveals that the annual cost of running a single LCS is currently around $70 million, compared to approximately $81 million for an Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer (DDG).
We should send one of our Iowas instead, if it sinks no real loss for us.