# Little Crappy Ship



## Manonthestreet

lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.


----------



## BULLDOG

I'm not sure why we are building more ships anyway. The military says they don't need them, but the republican congress told them they had to build more ships, tanks, and planes that are not needed.


----------



## Manonthestreet

McCain tried to kill this and F-35.....


----------



## Borillar

Overpriced and undergunned POS.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Of all the doomed-to-fail concepts that are baked in to LCS, the one that is most infuriating is the manning concept.

A classic case of, "_Here is your number. Make the rest justify it_." - it was strictly an artificially constructed idea force-moded on to our Navy by a toxic, anti-intellectual command climate and kept going through bureaucratic inertia, personal loyalty, and the standard issue careerism tactic of pushing problems to other people's PCS cycle.

The last few weeks have been a parade of horrors taking up a lot of space on this blog, but the news is the news. This "quickening of fail" was just a matter of time. As LCS critics have warned for over a decade, once these things start to displace water, you will only be able to hold off the reckoning so long, and then it will all cascade in. Forget chickens, the turkeys are coming home to roost.
CDR Salamander


----------



## Manonthestreet

UPDATED: Littoral Combat Ship USS Montgomery Suffers Engineering Casualty, Fifth LCS Casualty Within Last Year Littoral Combat Ship USS Montgomery Suffers Engineering Casualty


----------



## Manonthestreet

Well, we've commissioned LCS 1 through LCS 8 - minus LCS 7 that won't be commissioned until 22 OCT 16. That is seven.

Where are they?



USS FREEDOM (LCS 1): Unavailable due to mechanical failures from JUL 16. San Diego.
USS INDEPENDENCE (LCS 2): Available, PMC ASUW. NMC all other PMA.
USS FORT WORTH (LCS 3): Unavailable due to mechanical failures from JAN 16. Limping to San Diego.
USS CORONADO (LCS 4): Unavailable due to mechanical failures from AUG 16. Pearl Harbor.
USS MILWAUKEE (LCS 5): Unavailable due to mechanical failures from DEC 15. Mayport.
USS JACKSON (LCS 6): Unavailable due to post-shock test repairs. Mayport.
USS DETROIT (LCS 7): Not commissioned until 22 OCT 16.
USS MONTGOMERY (LCS 8): Not available due to mechanical failures from SEP 16. Limping to Mayport.
I'm sorry, there is no excuse here. 8-yrs after commissioning of LCS 1, and only one of the ships are available, and that one is the first in class "test ship" that is PMC. Pick any class of warship in the post-WWII era - there has never been this record of failure 8 years in.  CDR Salamander

Talk about deplorable


----------



## Borillar

If the Navy needs Corvette class ships, they could probably be purchased a lot cheaper from our allies who have more expertise with small ships. A Visby or Braunshweig type ship wold fit the littoral role nicely.


----------



## I amso IR

One naval analyst told USNI News on Sunday the casualty comes at a difficult time for the LCS program.

“Regardless of the cause, however, it comes at a sensitive time for the LCS program which still remains controversial both within the Navy and inside DoD,” Eric Wertheim, _the author of the U.S. Naval Institute’s Combat Fleets of the World, _told USNI News on Sunday.

“Eight years since the first unit of the class entered service, proponents and opponents on each side are still trying to figure out what the future of the LCS fleet will hold, how many ships should be built, where they should operate, and what types of missions they can perform. With all those questions still up in the air, any issues that arise can have an outsized impact on the future of the program.”

According to the third paragraph of the above statement it seems that the LCS is a reality without a defined mission. I suppose that is one way to run a Navy. Could the truth be that "stealth study" snookered the Navy? Or maybe this is how the Navy is working to increase the number of empty beer cans to build boats. To that approach I offer the British ship "Sheffield" which was burned and sunk by Argentina a few years back during the Falklands affair. Beer can boats are great for the Jon Boat class, not much more however.


----------



## Manonthestreet

So fragile Navy cant do a proper shock test for fear of doing massive damage.....Trump needs to sink this thing......
LCS Shock Trials Were Less Severe Than Navy Standard
"The Navy viewed the third [_Freedom_-class] trial as not worthwhile because the Navy was concerned shocking the ship at the increased level of that trial would significantly damage substantial amounts of non-hardened equipment, as well as damage, potentially significantly, the limited amount of hardened equipment, thereby necessitating costly and lengthy repairs," he wrote. The service opted for a simulated third test instead.


----------



## Spare_change

C'mon, folks ... use your head.

The Coronado is a test bed .... that means, it is constructed for specific tests. The rest is just jury rigged to support the subsystems under test. It is NOT a full-up LCS model. I guarantee --- and I've never been on it --- you could find cardboard sheets marked with words like "... radar display ..." or plywood boards marked " .... PRC-47 radio ... " The ship is not intended to be battle-worthy.

The key words "... non-hardened equipment .... ".

Frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree ... you're trying to find ways to make it look like the program is failing, but, it's simply not true. The systems being tested have performed well. Give it a chance to mature into a real ship before you start whining.


----------



## BULLDOG

As far as I can tell, there has never been protests of any size at any presidential inauguration. Trump will have a very shaky start to what will prove to be a disastrous presidency.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Spare_change said:


> C'mon, folks ... use your head.
> 
> The Coronado is a test bed .... that means, it is constructed for specific tests. The rest is just jury rigged to support the subsystems under test. It is NOT a full-up LCS model. I guarantee --- and I've never been on it --- you could find cardboard sheets marked with words like "... radar display ..." or plywood boards marked " .... PRC-47 radio ... " The ship is not intended to be battle-worthy.
> 
> The key words "... non-hardened equipment .... ".
> 
> Frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree ... you're trying to find ways to make it look like the program is failing, but, it's simply not true. The systems being tested have performed well. Give it a chance to mature into a real ship before you start whining.


Everyone of them has broken down......have zero offensive punch...yrs behind.....zero range......and overbudget...........funny how you puked out the establisment excuse....give it time.......


----------



## Spare_change

Manonthestreet said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, folks ... use your head.
> 
> The Coronado is a test bed .... that means, it is constructed for specific tests. The rest is just jury rigged to support the subsystems under test. It is NOT a full-up LCS model. I guarantee --- and I've never been on it --- you could find cardboard sheets marked with words like "... radar display ..." or plywood boards marked " .... PRC-47 radio ... " The ship is not intended to be battle-worthy.
> 
> The key words "... non-hardened equipment .... ".
> 
> Frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree ... you're trying to find ways to make it look like the program is failing, but, it's simply not true. The systems being tested have performed well. Give it a chance to mature into a real ship before you start whining.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of them has broken down......have zero offensive punch...yrs behind.....zero range......and overbudget...........funny how you puked out the establisment excuse....give it time.......
Click to expand...


Believe as you wish .... the truth will set you free of your prejudices and clearly jaundiced view.


----------



## whitehall

What is the modern definition of a "combat ship"? Are all the fat asses in the Pentagon still under the delusion of an ocean going war in the age of drones? The last time I saw U.S. Navy sailors in combat they were crying as they were kidnapped by terrorists from a freaking country that doesn't even have a navy.


----------



## Spare_change

whitehall said:


> What is the modern definition of a "combat ship"? Are all the fat asses in the Pentagon still under the delusion of an ocean going war in the age of drones? The last time I saw U.S. Navy sailors in combat they were crying as they were kidnapped by terrorists from a freaking country that doesn't even have a navy.




I think you greatly demean the contributions of the Navy in the Middle East.

Naval ships serve as a mobile launching pad for air and missile weapons. As long as they can do that, they will continue to be a threat, and continue to be threatened.


----------



## anotherlife

How can you call the ship crappy and little?  Designers, developers, builders, testers, and so on gave their heart and soul to put it together.

Although must say, that the titanic sank because the investment banker who bought the materials for it refused to spend any more than the cheapest steel.  That doesn't make the ship crappy though.

What if your mother ever reconsiders how you turned out?


----------



## whitehall

Spare_change said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the modern definition of a "combat ship"? Are all the fat asses in the Pentagon still under the delusion of an ocean going war in the age of drones? The last time I saw U.S. Navy sailors in combat they were crying as they were kidnapped by terrorists from a freaking country that doesn't even have a navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you greatly demean the contributions of the Navy in the Middle East.
> 
> Naval ships serve as a mobile launching pad for air and missile weapons. As long as they can do that, they will continue to be a threat, and continue to be threatened.
Click to expand...

What are the "contributions of the Navy in the Middle East"?  Bill Clinton threw a couple of million dollar missiles at old training sites but Barry Hussein decided that the Navy was not capable of rescuing the defenders of the Benghazi Alamo. What is the U.S. Navy mission these days?


----------



## anotherlife

whitehall said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the modern definition of a "combat ship"? Are all the fat asses in the Pentagon still under the delusion of an ocean going war in the age of drones? The last time I saw U.S. Navy sailors in combat they were crying as they were kidnapped by terrorists from a freaking country that doesn't even have a navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you greatly demean the contributions of the Navy in the Middle East.
> 
> Naval ships serve as a mobile launching pad for air and missile weapons. As long as they can do that, they will continue to be a threat, and continue to be threatened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the "contributions of the Navy in the Middle East"?  Bill Clinton threw a couple of million dollar missiles at old training sites but Barry Hussein decided that the Navy was not capable of rescuing the defenders of the Benghazi Alamo. What is the U.S. Navy mission these days?
Click to expand...


The US navy mission these days is to create jobs by giving insider contracts to select subcontractors who can then outsource the orders to Bangladesh and pocket your tax dollars.


----------



## whitehall

The U. S. Navy mission used to be to furnish big pensions to fat assed Pentagon Admirals and Generals and to get democrats elected. Apparently the mission has changed and let's see what happens next year.


----------



## Spare_change

whitehall said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the modern definition of a "combat ship"? Are all the fat asses in the Pentagon still under the delusion of an ocean going war in the age of drones? The last time I saw U.S. Navy sailors in combat they were crying as they were kidnapped by terrorists from a freaking country that doesn't even have a navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you greatly demean the contributions of the Navy in the Middle East.
> 
> Naval ships serve as a mobile launching pad for air and missile weapons. As long as they can do that, they will continue to be a threat, and continue to be threatened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the "contributions of the Navy in the Middle East"?  Bill Clinton threw a couple of million dollar missiles at old training sites but Barry Hussein decided that the Navy was not capable of rescuing the defenders of the Benghazi Alamo. What is the U.S. Navy mission these days?
Click to expand...



You can start here:

Middle East | Naval Today

or here:

Middle East mission develops sailor's skills

If you still have questions, i'll be happy to give you other references.


----------



## Spare_change

whitehall said:


> The U. S. Navy mission used to be to furnish big pensions to fat assed Pentagon Admirals and Generals and to get democrats elected. Apparently the mission has changed and let's see what happens next year.



Dang!!!

NOW I know what dumbassery really is.


----------



## whitehall

Spare_change said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the modern definition of a "combat ship"? Are all the fat asses in the Pentagon still under the delusion of an ocean going war in the age of drones? The last time I saw U.S. Navy sailors in combat they were crying as they were kidnapped by terrorists from a freaking country that doesn't even have a navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you greatly demean the contributions of the Navy in the Middle East.
> 
> Naval ships serve as a mobile launching pad for air and missile weapons. As long as they can do that, they will continue to be a threat, and continue to be threatened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the "contributions of the Navy in the Middle East"?  Bill Clinton threw a couple of million dollar missiles at old training sites but Barry Hussein decided that the Navy was not capable of rescuing the defenders of the Benghazi Alamo. What is the U.S. Navy mission these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can start here:
> 
> Middle East | Naval Today
> 
> or here:
> 
> Middle East mission develops sailor's skills
> 
> If you still have questions, i'll be happy to give you other references.
Click to expand...

Why don't you wade through U.S. Navy propaganda since you authored the original post and give us an synopsis of the Navy's future in the 21st century.


----------



## Spare_change

whitehall said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the modern definition of a "combat ship"? Are all the fat asses in the Pentagon still under the delusion of an ocean going war in the age of drones? The last time I saw U.S. Navy sailors in combat they were crying as they were kidnapped by terrorists from a freaking country that doesn't even have a navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you greatly demean the contributions of the Navy in the Middle East.
> 
> Naval ships serve as a mobile launching pad for air and missile weapons. As long as they can do that, they will continue to be a threat, and continue to be threatened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the "contributions of the Navy in the Middle East"?  Bill Clinton threw a couple of million dollar missiles at old training sites but Barry Hussein decided that the Navy was not capable of rescuing the defenders of the Benghazi Alamo. What is the U.S. Navy mission these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can start here:
> 
> Middle East | Naval Today
> 
> or here:
> 
> Middle East mission develops sailor's skills
> 
> If you still have questions, i'll be happy to give you other references.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you wade through U.S. Navy propaganda since you authored the original post and give us an synopsis of the Navy's future in the 21st century.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's pretty simple ... but I'm not sure you can keep up. I don't need to "wade thru US Navy propaganda" -- that which is logical really is simple ---- but I'm not sure you can keep up.

Two thirds of the Earth is water. In order to secure a nation, you must secure it. You must keep it safe from attack - no matter the source of the attack. Airplanes fly to protect against airborne threats, ships sail to protect against waterborne threats.

I'm not sure you realize just exactly how big the earth is. Projection of power thru the air - and across oceans - is not practical. Pre-deployment of military assets, in order to be able to respond in a timely manner, is a necessity. Naval pre-positioning enables us to project air, space, and ground assets quickly and effectively. Ship positioning provides an overlay of security in a much greater area of coverage than manpower.

Naval assets are required to protect our security interests, and the security of our commercial transportation. From carrier-launched fighters, to launching cruise missiles, they project the military might of the US, as well as provide security for shipping lanes and private ships.

The largest aircraft can move approximately 120 tons of materiel. The largest ship moves about 9,000 tons. The current estimate is that, during the run-up to Desert Storm, the Navy moved 4.79 million tons of materiel. How many aircraft - with an average flying time of 19 hours from St. Louis to Kuwait - be required to move that much materiel that far?

In short, the Navy is a valued member of the Armed Forces, and provides a unique, and necessary, contribution to the military effort.

As we move forward, the Naval aviation arm will be enhanced and provide close-in air capability, thus allowing us to withdraw in-theater air assets. In addition, movement of arms and personnel will be expanded, as well as the capability of its ship to project military force from a safe and stable platform.

So, next time before you start babbling about something you know nothing about --- maybe you should do some research.


----------



## westwall

Manonthestreet said:


> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.







I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.


----------



## westwall

Spare_change said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, folks ... use your head.
> 
> The Coronado is a test bed .... that means, it is constructed for specific tests. The rest is just jury rigged to support the subsystems under test. It is NOT a full-up LCS model. I guarantee --- and I've never been on it --- you could find cardboard sheets marked with words like "... radar display ..." or plywood boards marked " .... PRC-47 radio ... " The ship is not intended to be battle-worthy.
> 
> The key words "... non-hardened equipment .... ".
> 
> Frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree ... you're trying to find ways to make it look like the program is failing, but, it's simply not true. The systems being tested have performed well. Give it a chance to mature into a real ship before you start whining.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of them has broken down......have zero offensive punch...yrs behind.....zero range......and overbudget...........funny how you puked out the establisment excuse....give it time.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish .... the truth will set you free of your prejudices and clearly jaundiced view.
Click to expand...







The only prejudice is being demonstrated by you dude.  The ships are a catastrophic failure.  They are supposed to operate close to shore and a Somali pirate with an RPG-7 can knock the thing out.  You think that is good?  Get real...


----------



## Spare_change

westwall said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, folks ... use your head.
> 
> The Coronado is a test bed .... that means, it is constructed for specific tests. The rest is just jury rigged to support the subsystems under test. It is NOT a full-up LCS model. I guarantee --- and I've never been on it --- you could find cardboard sheets marked with words like "... radar display ..." or plywood boards marked " .... PRC-47 radio ... " The ship is not intended to be battle-worthy.
> 
> The key words "... non-hardened equipment .... ".
> 
> Frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree ... you're trying to find ways to make it look like the program is failing, but, it's simply not true. The systems being tested have performed well. Give it a chance to mature into a real ship before you start whining.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of them has broken down......have zero offensive punch...yrs behind.....zero range......and overbudget...........funny how you puked out the establisment excuse....give it time.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish .... the truth will set you free of your prejudices and clearly jaundiced view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only prejudice is being demonstrated by you dude.  The ships are a catastrophic failure.  They are supposed to operate close to shore and a Somali pirate with an RPG-7 can knock the thing out.  You think that is good?  Get real...
Click to expand...


I will repeat one more time ... for the reading comprehension impaired.

That is not the final product undergoing testing. It is a* testbed* that incorporates SOME of the technology to be used in the final product. It is a mock-up, designed to stress SOME of the new systems. Large portions of the ship are mock-ups, or interim installs that will not be used on the final product.

They will have the capabilities of a small assault transport, including a flight deck and hangar for housing two SH-60 or MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, a stern ramp for operating small boats, and the cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with fighting vehicles to a roll-on/roll-off port facility. Standard armaments include Mk 110 57 mm guns and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles. They are also equipped with autonomous air, surface, and underwater vehicles. Possessing lower air defense and surface warfare capabilities than destroyers, the LCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission modules and a shallow draft. They fill the function of a corvette (ship) (I'll let you look that up --- clearly, you need the practice.) They are going to be a very popular ship for the Coast Guard.

Once again, you jump to conclusions based on just a little iota of information, without bothering to actually investigate the situation. See how foolish a few facts make you look?


----------



## westwall

Spare_change said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, folks ... use your head.
> 
> The Coronado is a test bed .... that means, it is constructed for specific tests. The rest is just jury rigged to support the subsystems under test. It is NOT a full-up LCS model. I guarantee --- and I've never been on it --- you could find cardboard sheets marked with words like "... radar display ..." or plywood boards marked " .... PRC-47 radio ... " The ship is not intended to be battle-worthy.
> 
> The key words "... non-hardened equipment .... ".
> 
> Frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree ... you're trying to find ways to make it look like the program is failing, but, it's simply not true. The systems being tested have performed well. Give it a chance to mature into a real ship before you start whining.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of them has broken down......have zero offensive punch...yrs behind.....zero range......and overbudget...........funny how you puked out the establisment excuse....give it time.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish .... the truth will set you free of your prejudices and clearly jaundiced view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only prejudice is being demonstrated by you dude.  The ships are a catastrophic failure.  They are supposed to operate close to shore and a Somali pirate with an RPG-7 can knock the thing out.  You think that is good?  Get real...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will repeat one more time ... for the reading comprehension impaired.
> 
> That is not the final product undergoing testing. It is a* testbed* that incorporates SOME of the technology to be used in the final product. It is a mock-up, designed to stress SOME of the new systems. Large portions of the ship are mock-ups, or interim installs that will not be used on the final product.
> 
> They will have the capabilities of a small assault transport, including a flight deck and hangar for housing two SH-60 or MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, a stern ramp for operating small boats, and the cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with fighting vehicles to a roll-on/roll-off port facility. Standard armaments include Mk 110 57 mm guns and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles. They are also equipped with autonomous air, surface, and underwater vehicles. Possessing lower air defense and surface warfare capabilities than destroyers, the LCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission modules and a shallow draft. They fill the function of a corvette (ship) (I'll let you look that up --- clearly, you need the practice.) They are going to be a very popular ship for the Coast Guard.
> 
> Once again, you jump to conclusions based on just a little iota of information, without bothering to actually investigate the situation. See how foolish a few facts make you look?
Click to expand...






Bullshit.  It is a weapons system that was designed by short sighted personnel who had, and have no clue about what the hell they are doing.  The entire idea of a LCS is stupid as it has been designed.  The Argentine Navy found that out when they sailed their corvette the ARA Guerrico into the anchorage of South Georgia Island.  The Royal Marines shot it to pieces with small arms and an 84mm Carl Gustav which knocked out the 100mm main gun, the Exocet launcher, the 40mm cannon, and a whole bunch of electrical cables, all from 550 meters.  

The idea that you would place a vessel even remotely close to the shore, and not armor it, nor equip it with a substantial light cannon suite to deal with fast small craft, is simply retarded.


----------



## Manonthestreet

westwall said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, folks ... use your head.
> 
> The Coronado is a test bed .... that means, it is constructed for specific tests. The rest is just jury rigged to support the subsystems under test. It is NOT a full-up LCS model. I guarantee --- and I've never been on it --- you could find cardboard sheets marked with words like "... radar display ..." or plywood boards marked " .... PRC-47 radio ... " The ship is not intended to be battle-worthy.
> 
> The key words "... non-hardened equipment .... ".
> 
> Frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree ... you're trying to find ways to make it look like the program is failing, but, it's simply not true. The systems being tested have performed well. Give it a chance to mature into a real ship before you start whining.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of them has broken down......have zero offensive punch...yrs behind.....zero range......and overbudget...........funny how you puked out the establisment excuse....give it time.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish .... the truth will set you free of your prejudices and clearly jaundiced view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only prejudice is being demonstrated by you dude.  The ships are a catastrophic failure.  They are supposed to operate close to shore and a Somali pirate with an RPG-7 can knock the thing out.  You think that is good?  Get real...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will repeat one more time ... for the reading comprehension impaired.
> 
> That is not the final product undergoing testing. It is a* testbed* that incorporates SOME of the technology to be used in the final product. It is a mock-up, designed to stress SOME of the new systems. Large portions of the ship are mock-ups, or interim installs that will not be used on the final product.
> 
> They will have the capabilities of a small assault transport, including a flight deck and hangar for housing two SH-60 or MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, a stern ramp for operating small boats, and the cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with fighting vehicles to a roll-on/roll-off port facility. Standard armaments include Mk 110 57 mm guns and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles. They are also equipped with autonomous air, surface, and underwater vehicles. Possessing lower air defense and surface warfare capabilities than destroyers, the LCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission modules and a shallow draft. They fill the function of a corvette (ship) (I'll let you look that up --- clearly, you need the practice.) They are going to be a very popular ship for the Coast Guard.
> 
> Once again, you jump to conclusions based on just a little iota of information, without bothering to actually investigate the situation. See how foolish a few facts make you look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is a weapons system that was designed by short sighted personnel who had, and have no clue about what the hell they are doing.  The entire idea of a LCS is stupid as it has been designed.  The Argentine Navy found that out when they sailed their corvette the ARA Guerrico into the anchorage of South Georgia Island.  The Royal Marines shot it to pieces with small arms and an 84mm Carl Gustav which knocked out the 100mm main gun, the Exocet launcher, the 40mm cannon, and a whole bunch of electrical cables, all from 550 meters.
> 
> The idea that you would place a vessel even remotely close to the shore, and not armor it, nor equip it with a substantial light cannon suite to deal with fast small craft, is simply retarded.
Click to expand...

As it is configured it might make a decent coast Guard vessel.....thats about it.....we dont have the resources to be towing these things all over the theater because they keep breaking down..........


----------



## Spare_change

westwall said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, folks ... use your head.
> 
> The Coronado is a test bed .... that means, it is constructed for specific tests. The rest is just jury rigged to support the subsystems under test. It is NOT a full-up LCS model. I guarantee --- and I've never been on it --- you could find cardboard sheets marked with words like "... radar display ..." or plywood boards marked " .... PRC-47 radio ... " The ship is not intended to be battle-worthy.
> 
> The key words "... non-hardened equipment .... ".
> 
> Frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree ... you're trying to find ways to make it look like the program is failing, but, it's simply not true. The systems being tested have performed well. Give it a chance to mature into a real ship before you start whining.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of them has broken down......have zero offensive punch...yrs behind.....zero range......and overbudget...........funny how you puked out the establisment excuse....give it time.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish .... the truth will set you free of your prejudices and clearly jaundiced view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only prejudice is being demonstrated by you dude.  The ships are a catastrophic failure.  They are supposed to operate close to shore and a Somali pirate with an RPG-7 can knock the thing out.  You think that is good?  Get real...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will repeat one more time ... for the reading comprehension impaired.
> 
> That is not the final product undergoing testing. It is a* testbed* that incorporates SOME of the technology to be used in the final product. It is a mock-up, designed to stress SOME of the new systems. Large portions of the ship are mock-ups, or interim installs that will not be used on the final product.
> 
> They will have the capabilities of a small assault transport, including a flight deck and hangar for housing two SH-60 or MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, a stern ramp for operating small boats, and the cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with fighting vehicles to a roll-on/roll-off port facility. Standard armaments include Mk 110 57 mm guns and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles. They are also equipped with autonomous air, surface, and underwater vehicles. Possessing lower air defense and surface warfare capabilities than destroyers, the LCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission modules and a shallow draft. They fill the function of a corvette (ship) (I'll let you look that up --- clearly, you need the practice.) They are going to be a very popular ship for the Coast Guard.
> 
> Once again, you jump to conclusions based on just a little iota of information, without bothering to actually investigate the situation. See how foolish a few facts make you look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is a weapons system that was designed by short sighted personnel who had, and have no clue about what the hell they are doing.  The entire idea of a LCS is stupid as it has been designed.  The Argentine Navy found that out when they sailed their corvette the ARA Guerrico into the anchorage of South Georgia Island.  The Royal Marines shot it to pieces with small arms and an 84mm Carl Gustav which knocked out the 100mm main gun, the Exocet launcher, the 40mm cannon, and a whole bunch of electrical cables, all from 550 meters.
> 
> The idea that you would place a vessel even remotely close to the shore, and not armor it, nor equip it with a substantial light cannon suite to deal with fast small craft, is simply retarded.
Click to expand...


Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the boat will be armored, but the methodology is classified?? You think, maybe, just maybe, the testbed doesn't have the classified armoring system installed in order to protect it?

In a totally unrelated matter, take a look at graphene armor. (Gee, I wonder if using a carbon-based armor might help with its stealth function? Maybe I should call the Pentagon, huh?)

But, I must say, I am truly honored to be in conversation with someone who knows so ever much more than my contacts at the Pentagon.

Can I have your autograph?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Spare_change said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of them has broken down......have zero offensive punch...yrs behind.....zero range......and overbudget...........funny how you puked out the establisment excuse....give it time.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish .... the truth will set you free of your prejudices and clearly jaundiced view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only prejudice is being demonstrated by you dude.  The ships are a catastrophic failure.  They are supposed to operate close to shore and a Somali pirate with an RPG-7 can knock the thing out.  You think that is good?  Get real...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will repeat one more time ... for the reading comprehension impaired.
> 
> That is not the final product undergoing testing. It is a* testbed* that incorporates SOME of the technology to be used in the final product. It is a mock-up, designed to stress SOME of the new systems. Large portions of the ship are mock-ups, or interim installs that will not be used on the final product.
> 
> They will have the capabilities of a small assault transport, including a flight deck and hangar for housing two SH-60 or MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, a stern ramp for operating small boats, and the cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with fighting vehicles to a roll-on/roll-off port facility. Standard armaments include Mk 110 57 mm guns and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles. They are also equipped with autonomous air, surface, and underwater vehicles. Possessing lower air defense and surface warfare capabilities than destroyers, the LCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission modules and a shallow draft. They fill the function of a corvette (ship) (I'll let you look that up --- clearly, you need the practice.) They are going to be a very popular ship for the Coast Guard.
> 
> Once again, you jump to conclusions based on just a little iota of information, without bothering to actually investigate the situation. See how foolish a few facts make you look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is a weapons system that was designed by short sighted personnel who had, and have no clue about what the hell they are doing.  The entire idea of a LCS is stupid as it has been designed.  The Argentine Navy found that out when they sailed their corvette the ARA Guerrico into the anchorage of South Georgia Island.  The Royal Marines shot it to pieces with small arms and an 84mm Carl Gustav which knocked out the 100mm main gun, the Exocet launcher, the 40mm cannon, and a whole bunch of electrical cables, all from 550 meters.
> 
> The idea that you would place a vessel even remotely close to the shore, and not armor it, nor equip it with a substantial light cannon suite to deal with fast small craft, is simply retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the boat will be armored, but the methodology is classified?? You think, maybe, just maybe, the testbed doesn't have the classified armoring system installed in order to protect it?
> 
> In a totally unrelated matter, take a look at graphene armor. (Gee, I wonder if using a carbon-based armor might help with its stealth function? Maybe I should call the Pentagon, huh?)
> 
> But, I must say, I am truly honored to be in conversation with someone who knows so ever much more than my contacts at the Pentagon.
> 
> Can I have your autograph?
Click to expand...

Way past testing phase on these ships ....what you see is what you get.....though they are trying to add more weapons.......for antiship and anti air,,,,,,,as they are theyre nothing more than targets.......


----------



## Spare_change

Manonthestreet said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish .... the truth will set you free of your prejudices and clearly jaundiced view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only prejudice is being demonstrated by you dude.  The ships are a catastrophic failure.  They are supposed to operate close to shore and a Somali pirate with an RPG-7 can knock the thing out.  You think that is good?  Get real...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will repeat one more time ... for the reading comprehension impaired.
> 
> That is not the final product undergoing testing. It is a* testbed* that incorporates SOME of the technology to be used in the final product. It is a mock-up, designed to stress SOME of the new systems. Large portions of the ship are mock-ups, or interim installs that will not be used on the final product.
> 
> They will have the capabilities of a small assault transport, including a flight deck and hangar for housing two SH-60 or MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, a stern ramp for operating small boats, and the cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with fighting vehicles to a roll-on/roll-off port facility. Standard armaments include Mk 110 57 mm guns and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles. They are also equipped with autonomous air, surface, and underwater vehicles. Possessing lower air defense and surface warfare capabilities than destroyers, the LCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission modules and a shallow draft. They fill the function of a corvette (ship) (I'll let you look that up --- clearly, you need the practice.) They are going to be a very popular ship for the Coast Guard.
> 
> Once again, you jump to conclusions based on just a little iota of information, without bothering to actually investigate the situation. See how foolish a few facts make you look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is a weapons system that was designed by short sighted personnel who had, and have no clue about what the hell they are doing.  The entire idea of a LCS is stupid as it has been designed.  The Argentine Navy found that out when they sailed their corvette the ARA Guerrico into the anchorage of South Georgia Island.  The Royal Marines shot it to pieces with small arms and an 84mm Carl Gustav which knocked out the 100mm main gun, the Exocet launcher, the 40mm cannon, and a whole bunch of electrical cables, all from 550 meters.
> 
> The idea that you would place a vessel even remotely close to the shore, and not armor it, nor equip it with a substantial light cannon suite to deal with fast small craft, is simply retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the boat will be armored, but the methodology is classified?? You think, maybe, just maybe, the testbed doesn't have the classified armoring system installed in order to protect it?
> 
> In a totally unrelated matter, take a look at graphene armor. (Gee, I wonder if using a carbon-based armor might help with its stealth function? Maybe I should call the Pentagon, huh?)
> 
> But, I must say, I am truly honored to be in conversation with someone who knows so ever much more than my contacts at the Pentagon.
> 
> Can I have your autograph?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Way past testing phase on these ships ....what you see is what you get.....though they are trying to add more weapons.......for antiship and anti air,,,,,,,as they are theyre nothing more than targets.......
Click to expand...



LOL .... as you wish.


----------



## westwall

Spare_change said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of them has broken down......have zero offensive punch...yrs behind.....zero range......and overbudget...........funny how you puked out the establisment excuse....give it time.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish .... the truth will set you free of your prejudices and clearly jaundiced view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only prejudice is being demonstrated by you dude.  The ships are a catastrophic failure.  They are supposed to operate close to shore and a Somali pirate with an RPG-7 can knock the thing out.  You think that is good?  Get real...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will repeat one more time ... for the reading comprehension impaired.
> 
> That is not the final product undergoing testing. It is a* testbed* that incorporates SOME of the technology to be used in the final product. It is a mock-up, designed to stress SOME of the new systems. Large portions of the ship are mock-ups, or interim installs that will not be used on the final product.
> 
> They will have the capabilities of a small assault transport, including a flight deck and hangar for housing two SH-60 or MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, a stern ramp for operating small boats, and the cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with fighting vehicles to a roll-on/roll-off port facility. Standard armaments include Mk 110 57 mm guns and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles. They are also equipped with autonomous air, surface, and underwater vehicles. Possessing lower air defense and surface warfare capabilities than destroyers, the LCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission modules and a shallow draft. They fill the function of a corvette (ship) (I'll let you look that up --- clearly, you need the practice.) They are going to be a very popular ship for the Coast Guard.
> 
> Once again, you jump to conclusions based on just a little iota of information, without bothering to actually investigate the situation. See how foolish a few facts make you look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is a weapons system that was designed by short sighted personnel who had, and have no clue about what the hell they are doing.  The entire idea of a LCS is stupid as it has been designed.  The Argentine Navy found that out when they sailed their corvette the ARA Guerrico into the anchorage of South Georgia Island.  The Royal Marines shot it to pieces with small arms and an 84mm Carl Gustav which knocked out the 100mm main gun, the Exocet launcher, the 40mm cannon, and a whole bunch of electrical cables, all from 550 meters.
> 
> The idea that you would place a vessel even remotely close to the shore, and not armor it, nor equip it with a substantial light cannon suite to deal with fast small craft, is simply retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the boat will be armored, but the methodology is classified?? You think, maybe, just maybe, the testbed doesn't have the classified armoring system installed in order to protect it?
> 
> In a totally unrelated matter, take a look at graphene armor. (Gee, I wonder if using a carbon-based armor might help with its stealth function? Maybe I should call the Pentagon, huh?)
> 
> But, I must say, I am truly honored to be in conversation with someone who knows so ever much more than my contacts at the Pentagon.
> 
> Can I have your autograph?
Click to expand...






Did it ever occur to you that the ship was designed by people who were long on theoretics, but real, real short on historical knowledge and real world experience?  A testbed is a single vessel.  You commission that vessel and then you test the ever loving shit out of it to prove its worth.  After you have a year or so of experience with it you then go to the ship builder and read out your punch list of things that need to change.

The Royal Navy is having the same problems with their newest class of warship which apparently was designed by the same silly people as designed the LCS.  Proof of Concept 
is the term you are seeking and as I said, you build ONE of them.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Spare_change said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only prejudice is being demonstrated by you dude.  The ships are a catastrophic failure.  They are supposed to operate close to shore and a Somali pirate with an RPG-7 can knock the thing out.  You think that is good?  Get real...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will repeat one more time ... for the reading comprehension impaired.
> 
> That is not the final product undergoing testing. It is a* testbed* that incorporates SOME of the technology to be used in the final product. It is a mock-up, designed to stress SOME of the new systems. Large portions of the ship are mock-ups, or interim installs that will not be used on the final product.
> 
> They will have the capabilities of a small assault transport, including a flight deck and hangar for housing two SH-60 or MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, a stern ramp for operating small boats, and the cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with fighting vehicles to a roll-on/roll-off port facility. Standard armaments include Mk 110 57 mm guns and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles. They are also equipped with autonomous air, surface, and underwater vehicles. Possessing lower air defense and surface warfare capabilities than destroyers, the LCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission modules and a shallow draft. They fill the function of a corvette (ship) (I'll let you look that up --- clearly, you need the practice.) They are going to be a very popular ship for the Coast Guard.
> 
> Once again, you jump to conclusions based on just a little iota of information, without bothering to actually investigate the situation. See how foolish a few facts make you look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is a weapons system that was designed by short sighted personnel who had, and have no clue about what the hell they are doing.  The entire idea of a LCS is stupid as it has been designed.  The Argentine Navy found that out when they sailed their corvette the ARA Guerrico into the anchorage of South Georgia Island.  The Royal Marines shot it to pieces with small arms and an 84mm Carl Gustav which knocked out the 100mm main gun, the Exocet launcher, the 40mm cannon, and a whole bunch of electrical cables, all from 550 meters.
> 
> The idea that you would place a vessel even remotely close to the shore, and not armor it, nor equip it with a substantial light cannon suite to deal with fast small craft, is simply retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the boat will be armored, but the methodology is classified?? You think, maybe, just maybe, the testbed doesn't have the classified armoring system installed in order to protect it?
> 
> In a totally unrelated matter, take a look at graphene armor. (Gee, I wonder if using a carbon-based armor might help with its stealth function? Maybe I should call the Pentagon, huh?)
> 
> But, I must say, I am truly honored to be in conversation with someone who knows so ever much more than my contacts at the Pentagon.
> 
> Can I have your autograph?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Way past testing phase on these ships ....what you see is what you get.....though they are trying to add more weapons.......for antiship and anti air,,,,,,,as they are theyre nothing more than targets.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL .... as you wish.
Click to expand...

Would simply ask you to read from the beginning.......somewhere in here is a timeline comparison between LCS and the OHP class...from start to actual induction and deployments .....speed of prodcution.......LCS story is nothing but lies...deceit and failure..........I have yet to see an idea to improve them that has any wow factor......they are short-legged with a very short reach weapons wise when you need to be extending them


----------



## Manonthestreet

The Pentagon office responsible for testing new weapons and platforms told the Senate that the ships cannot sustain battle damage that other ships would be expected to recover from, likely necessitating their eventual abandonment in sustained high-intensity combat. It also found widespread reliability problems, (something a string of high-profile engineering failures this year highlighted), construction quality problems, and inability to meet stated combat requirements. The conclusion was that “LCS does not provide a lethal capability in the primary missions it was built for, and given the change in [their operating concept], its design is not survivable in those missions either.” Littoral Combat Ship: The US Navy’s ‘Alleged Warship’


----------



## peach174

westwall said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish .... the truth will set you free of your prejudices and clearly jaundiced view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only prejudice is being demonstrated by you dude.  The ships are a catastrophic failure.  They are supposed to operate close to shore and a Somali pirate with an RPG-7 can knock the thing out.  You think that is good?  Get real...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will repeat one more time ... for the reading comprehension impaired.
> 
> That is not the final product undergoing testing. It is a* testbed* that incorporates SOME of the technology to be used in the final product. It is a mock-up, designed to stress SOME of the new systems. Large portions of the ship are mock-ups, or interim installs that will not be used on the final product.
> 
> They will have the capabilities of a small assault transport, including a flight deck and hangar for housing two SH-60 or MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, a stern ramp for operating small boats, and the cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with fighting vehicles to a roll-on/roll-off port facility. Standard armaments include Mk 110 57 mm guns and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles. They are also equipped with autonomous air, surface, and underwater vehicles. Possessing lower air defense and surface warfare capabilities than destroyers, the LCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission modules and a shallow draft. They fill the function of a corvette (ship) (I'll let you look that up --- clearly, you need the practice.) They are going to be a very popular ship for the Coast Guard.
> 
> Once again, you jump to conclusions based on just a little iota of information, without bothering to actually investigate the situation. See how foolish a few facts make you look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is a weapons system that was designed by short sighted personnel who had, and have no clue about what the hell they are doing.  The entire idea of a LCS is stupid as it has been designed.  The Argentine Navy found that out when they sailed their corvette the ARA Guerrico into the anchorage of South Georgia Island.  The Royal Marines shot it to pieces with small arms and an 84mm Carl Gustav which knocked out the 100mm main gun, the Exocet launcher, the 40mm cannon, and a whole bunch of electrical cables, all from 550 meters.
> 
> The idea that you would place a vessel even remotely close to the shore, and not armor it, nor equip it with a substantial light cannon suite to deal with fast small craft, is simply retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the boat will be armored, but the methodology is classified?? You think, maybe, just maybe, the testbed doesn't have the classified armoring system installed in order to protect it?
> 
> In a totally unrelated matter, take a look at graphene armor. (Gee, I wonder if using a carbon-based armor might help with its stealth function? Maybe I should call the Pentagon, huh?)
> 
> But, I must say, I am truly honored to be in conversation with someone who knows so ever much more than my contacts at the Pentagon.
> 
> Can I have your autograph?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that the ship was designed by people who were long on theoretics, but real, real short on historical knowledge and real world experience?  A testbed is a single vessel.  You commission that vessel and then you test the ever loving shit out of it to prove its worth.  After you have a year or so of experience with it you then go to the ship builder and read out your punch list of things that need to change.
> 
> The Royal Navy is having the same problems with their newest class of warship which apparently was designed by the same silly people as designed the LCS.  Proof of Concept
> is the term you are seeking and as I said, you build ONE of them.
Click to expand...



I call them Educated Theorists. 
Theories that look good on paper, but dont work in the real world.


----------



## Manonthestreet

How overbudget and worthless is LCS compared to other designs???
Example A
CDR Salamander: A Frigate for your CSG


----------



## westwall

Manonthestreet said:


> How overbudget and worthless is LCS compared to other designs???
> Example A
> CDR Salamander: A Frigate for your CSG







I love the comments!


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.


While I agree LCS is a boondoggle I'm not understanding some of your arguments here.

Ships with LO characteristics aren't trying to hide from eyes, obviously they can be seen within horizon or IR range. Stealth isn't for when these ships are a ten kilometers off the coast, it is for when they are in blue water environments and engagements happen when radars find enemy ships. I'm all for making ships LO, not only does it make them harder to find, it makes them harder to hit with antiship missiles since the majority are active radar for terminal guidance. 

There is a reason so many modern warships produced from countries including UK, India, Sweden, Finland, Taiwan, France, China, Noway, etc. have stealth characteristics. They aren't all being silly, they are doing it because every modern navy understands the value of having a ship that is more difficult to detect and track with radar. LCS is multirole, they plan on using it both for whatever green water dealie as well as augmenting the blue water assets in a role akin to a frigate. Being stealthy is good, even if LCS appears to be quite poor on the value for cost equation.

Also close in weapons is actually one of the few strengths of LCS. It has the main bofors 57, two 30mm, SeaRam  CIWS, and they are adding Longbow Hellfire and two additional 25mm autocannons. What is lacks, as ManOnTheStreet alluded to, is any long range punch. They are talking about adding an over the horizon antiship missile but who knows where that will go, outside of that it's offensive capabilities are quite limited.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Look at this, why dont we ditch LCS and use the Coast Guard Cutters as their replacement.....check out the specs and cost.....the well deck could be used for unmanned surface or subsurface drones,,,,would need to tack on some more more offensive capability and air defense but so does LCS.........plus it has huge range....seems like no brainer what do ya think?
National Security Cutter - Wikipedia

*Combat suite[edit]*
Legend-class cutters have increased data link bandwidth.[_citation needed_]The EADS North America TRS-3D radar system provides three-dimensional air and surface search functions and is used in the LCS program as well as the German Korvette 130 program.[10] The cutters are also equipped with the AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare (EW) system used in the DDG-51.[11] The Legend class is equipped with the same 220 rpm Bofors 57 mm gun as mounted on the USN's Littoral combat ships.[12] The Missile Defense duties are handled by the MK 36 SRBOC decoy systems also used on the FFG-7 and CG-47 programs and theCIWS.[13] The sonar is reported as having mine and underwater swimmer location ability.[6] The cutters have space, weight, and power reserved for additional weapons and systems which includes mine warfare systems.[14]


----------



## Manonthestreet

A main factor driving Crew 204's open-ended deployment is the delay in getting a new crew qualified to replace them after a change in training standards. Qualifying under the new training standards requires some underway time. And to get underway, the crew, which will be Crew 203, needs a ship and for now all the trimaran LCS-2 variant ships are either in overhaul or undergoing repairs. LCS crew marooned in Singapore on an open-ended deployment


----------



## OldLady

BULLDOG said:


> I'm not sure why we are building more ships anyway. The military says they don't need them, but the republican congress told them they had to build more ships, tanks, and planes that are not needed.


The Navy needs planes.  They're using parts from planes in museums to repair the ones they're still flying.  That's too old.  I've heard this on a few different news shows.  I'm pretty sure it's true.


----------



## Manonthestreet

WASHINGTON: The Navy is seriously considering derivatives of foreign designs and the Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter for its new frigate, after three years pursuing an upgraded version of its current Littoral Combat Ship. The shift has shaken up the industry, panicking some players, while others quietly reposition: Beyond LCS: Navy Looks To Foreign Frigates, National Security Cutter
About time.....I favor the improved Legend Class cutter....would like to see its speed ramped up to be able to fast transit with our carriers when needed.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
Click to expand...


There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
Click to expand...

Everyone of them has broken down......why do you think they are cutting it short......how bout we give em to Coast Guard...about all they are good for


----------



## I amso IR

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
Click to expand...


No but I rode on one the USNS Upshur. She was an MSTS ship and served between Germany and New York transporting troops. She was a Littoral Ship in every respect and had no business on the high sea, period!  If you want a deep sea, blue water, get one. If the requirement is a shallow water vessel, buy a Jon boat. Compliments of "Catfish Killer".


----------



## I amso IR

Manonthestreet said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone of them has broken down......why do you think they are cutting it short......how bout we give em to Coast Guard...about all they are good for
Click to expand...


Give "em" to the Coast Guard?????? The Coasties have enough headaches, donchathink?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Manonthestreet said:


> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.


That's why they call it a shakedown cruise, dufus.  I'm not aware of any ship in history  that didn't have issues on the first cruise.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Manonthestreet said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone of them has broken down......why do you think they are cutting it short......how bout we give em to Coast Guard...about all they are good for
Click to expand...


More reading comprehension problems?  I never said anything about any of that, so what prompted the response?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

I amso IR said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but I rode on one the USNS Upshur. She was an MSTS ship and served between Germany and New York transporting troops. She was a Littoral Ship in every respect and had no business on the high sea, period!  If you want a deep sea, blue water, get one. If the requirement is a shallow water vessel, buy a Jon boat. Compliments of "Catfish Killer".
Click to expand...



My God!  How old are you?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Weatherman2020 said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why they call it a shakedown cruise, dufus.  I'm not aware of any ship in history  that didn't have issues on the first cruise.
Click to expand...

Every one of them.............poor design.........people whine about defense spending and then turn around and defend crap


----------



## Weatherman2020

Manonthestreet said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why they call it a shakedown cruise, dufus.  I'm not aware of any ship in history  that didn't have issues on the first cruise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every one of them.............poor design.........people whine about defense spending and then turn around and defend crap
Click to expand...

Everyone of them going back 600 years is what I referred to.  
The Vasa was the worlds largest and most powerful warship 600 years ago. She sailed 20 minutes, capsized and sank.


----------



## I amso IR

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but I rode on one the USNS Upshur. She was an MSTS ship and served between Germany and New York transporting troops. She was a Littoral Ship in every respect and had no business on the high sea, period!  If you want a deep sea, blue water, get one. If the requirement is a shallow water vessel, buy a Jon boat. Compliments of "Catfish Killer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My God!  How old are you?[/QUOTE
> 
> Older than you "Bingo", that is for sure. Let me guess, Annapolis Class of 1990? Not bad for a guy my age, huh? And now you feel cheated out of combat pay for all your service in the Tonkin Gulf?
Click to expand...


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

I amso IR said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but I rode on one the USNS Upshur. She was an MSTS ship and served between Germany and New York transporting troops. She was a Littoral Ship in every respect and had no business on the high sea, period!  If you want a deep sea, blue water, get one. If the requirement is a shallow water vessel, buy a Jon boat. Compliments of "Catfish Killer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My God!  How old are you?[/QUOTE
> 
> Older than you "Bingo", that is for sure. Let me guess, Annapolis Class of 1990? Not bad for a guy my age, huh? And now you feel cheated out of combat pay for all your service in the Tonkin Gulf?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No Canoe U. for me.  I like girls.

ROTC grad in 1984 after enlisted service.  Got my combat pay in the Gulf War.


----------



## I amso IR

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but I rode on one the USNS Upshur. She was an MSTS ship and served between Germany and New York transporting troops. She was a Littoral Ship in every respect and had no business on the high sea, period!  If you want a deep sea, blue water, get one. If the requirement is a shallow water vessel, buy a Jon boat. Compliments of "Catfish Killer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My God!  How old are you?[/QUOTE
> 
> Older than you "Bingo", that is for sure. Let me guess, Annapolis Class of 1990? Not bad for a guy my age, huh? And now you feel cheated out of combat pay for all your service in the Tonkin Gulf?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Canoe U. for me.  I like girls.
> 
> ROTC grad in 1984 after enlisted service.  Got my combat pay in the Gulf War.
Click to expand...


Good lick, sonny, but if u want to play like a big boy, and you should, then bone up a bit. Still, I have your back, even if you are ROTC. What a scary thought! Were U Airborne qualified? There is an exceptional read on the market and available thru Amazon. Will get back with you. PLEASE, try not to get into trouble, but if you do, get a hold of FlaCalTenn. The guy is an absolute whiz at what he does.


----------



## Weatherman2020

westwall said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
Click to expand...

Ships are not built for survivability anymore. One can debate the merits of the decision because both sides have good points. A battleship can take repeated hits, but costs a million a day to operate.  One of the biggest sea battles of WW2 was the battle of the Philippines, won by tin can destroyers and a few light carriers on sub duty against Jap battleships and heavy cruisers.

Personally, I like the idea of a lot of fast ships with firepower running around every ocean, even if one hit may sink them.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Weatherman2020 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ships are not built for survivability anymore. One can debate the merits of the decision because both sides have good points. A battleship can take repeated hits, but costs a million a day to operate.  One of the biggest sea battles of WW2 was the battle of the Philippines, won by tin can destroyers and a few light carriers on sub duty against Jap battleships and heavy cruisers.
> 
> Personally, I like the idea of a lot of fast ships with firepower running around every ocean, even if one hit may sink them.
Click to expand...

they have no firepower no range,,,.....and constantly break.......lets get more


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

I amso IR said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but I rode on one the USNS Upshur. She was an MSTS ship and served between Germany and New York transporting troops. She was a Littoral Ship in every respect and had no business on the high sea, period!  If you want a deep sea, blue water, get one. If the requirement is a shallow water vessel, buy a Jon boat. Compliments of "Catfish Killer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My God!  How old are you?[/QUOTE
> 
> Older than you "Bingo", that is for sure. Let me guess, Annapolis Class of 1990? Not bad for a guy my age, huh? And now you feel cheated out of combat pay for all your service in the Tonkin Gulf?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Canoe U. for me.  I like girls.
> 
> ROTC grad in 1984 after enlisted service.  Got my combat pay in the Gulf War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good lick, sonny, but if u want to play like a big boy, and you should, then bone up a bit. Still, I have your back, even if you are ROTC. What a scary thought! Were U Airborne qualified? There is an exceptional read on the market and available thru Amazon. Will get back with you. PLEASE, try not to get into trouble, but if you do, get a hold of FlaCalTenn. The guy is an absolute whiz at what he does.
Click to expand...


Not too much use in being airborne qualified on a submarine now is there?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Manonthestreet said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ships are not built for survivability anymore. One can debate the merits of the decision because both sides have good points. A battleship can take repeated hits, but costs a million a day to operate.  One of the biggest sea battles of WW2 was the battle of the Philippines, won by tin can destroyers and a few light carriers on sub duty against Jap battleships and heavy cruisers.
> 
> Personally, I like the idea of a lot of fast ships with firepower running around every ocean, even if one hit may sink them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have no firepower no range,,,.....and constantly break.......lets get more
Click to expand...

They carry missiles, a lot of them.  Zumwalts will soon have rail guns with a range of 125 miles.  Our largest ships ever, the Iowa class, had a range of 25 miles.


----------



## I amso IR

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but I rode on one the USNS Upshur. She was an MSTS ship and served between Germany and New York transporting troops. She was a Littoral Ship in every respect and had no business on the high sea, period!  If you want a deep sea, blue water, get one. If the requirement is a shallow water vessel, buy a Jon boat. Compliments of "Catfish Killer".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My God!  How old are you?[/QUOTE
> 
> Older than you "Bingo", that is for sure. Let me guess, Annapolis Class of 1990? Not bad for a guy my age, huh? And now you feel cheated out of combat pay for all your service in the Tonkin Gulf?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Canoe U. for me.  I like girls.
> 
> ROTC grad in 1984 after enlisted service.  Got my combat pay in the Gulf War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good lick, sonny, but if u want to play like a big boy, and you should, then bone up a bit. Still, I have your back, even if you are ROTC. What a scary thought! Were U Airborne qualified? There is an exceptional read on the market and available thru Amazon. Will get back with you. PLEASE, try not to get into trouble, but if you do, get a hold of FlaCalTenn. The guy is an absolute whiz at what he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not too much use in being airborne qualified on a submarine now is there?
Click to expand...

 You are killing me, Popeye! Forget the book, "The Brave One's" by Michael MeCloud, a forty one year old enlistee in the United States Army, Airborne, Hooha! I am a Retired First Sergeant, Old Army, OD Uniform w/Ike Jacket. God how I love you new guys. Please, I beg of you, buy this book and get an idea of what you are missing out on. Please understand, the affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan are new and today, however, that said, I implore you to read the book. I have not finished it as I cannot stop weeping and being an utter waste of human tissue. Where do these men and women come from? Not my block, to be sure, and I live on the west side of the village.


----------



## DrainBamage

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.


Yeah he does use that phrase a hell of a lot.


----------



## I amso IR

DrainBamage said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he does use that phrase a hell of a lot.
Click to expand...


Yep! ROTC and all that shit. On ward, on ward, into the jaws of death, marched the 5000, or some such horseshit as that. Not to mention I am pushing a book about Airborne. 505th AIR, Ft Bragg, NC 1957, by God! The year of Sputnik and Russia and the USMC at Ft. Bragg, NC and their humiliation at Ft. Bragg during "Operation All American". Never forget the "Battle of Hay Street".


----------



## I amso IR

Will someone at least say, "something"? Pogo where are you when needed? Matthew, you must be lurking some where close at hand. Hello!!!! Anyone?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

I amso IR said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he does use that phrase a hell of a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep! ROTC and all that shit. On ward, on ward, into the jaws of death, marched the 5000, or some such horseshit as that. Not to mention I am pushing a book about Airborne. 505th AIR, Ft Bragg, NC 1957, by God! The year of Sputnik and Russia and the USMC at Ft. Bragg, NC and their humiliation at Ft. Bragg during "Operation All American". Never forget the "Battle of Hay Street".
Click to expand...


What ward were you on, and in what hospital?


----------



## Mushroom

Weatherman2020 said:


> [
> They carry missiles, a lot of them.  Zumwalts will soon have rail guns with a range of 125 miles.  Our largest ships ever, the Iowa class, had a range of 25 miles.



Only when originally launched.

When they were returned to service they were outfitted with Harpoon (60+ miles) and Tomahawk (1,500+ miles) missiles to expand that range greatly.

Rail gun, big deal.  Great if you want to hit a point target like a bunker, ship, or building.  Of little to no use if you are trying to take out area targets in support of troops on the ground.

Oh, and for surface attack the LCS does not have that many missiles. All it has is RAM (21 of them) for anti-air capability, nothing for surface capability at all.  The Iowa class on the other hand had 32 Tomahawk missiles plus 16 Harpoon missiles.

And do not hold your breath on it getting ground attack missile capability.  The current plan is for hull number 33 to have the capability to carry has 24 Hellfire missiles (with a 5 mile range), but they are not even expecting to build that one for another 10 years at the soonest.

The Zumwalt class will have 80 launch cells, split between Sea Sparrow, Tomahawk, and ASW missiles.  But loadout will have to be determined prior to leaving port, which means more than likely only around 20 Tomahawks (Destroyers by definition are defensive ships, so loadout will most likely be primarily in AA-ASW missiles).


----------



## I amso IR

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he does use that phrase a hell of a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep! ROTC and all that shit. On ward, on ward, into the jaws of death, marched the 5000, or some such horseshit as that. Not to mention I am pushing a book about Airborne. 505th AIR, Ft Bragg, NC 1957, by God! The year of Sputnik and Russia and the USMC at Ft. Bragg, NC and their humiliation at Ft. Bragg during "Operation All American". Never forget the "Battle of Hay Street".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ward were you on, and in what hospital?
Click to expand...


Adrimirable Rocky. I did my best to humor you. You honestly seemed like a likeable guy who wanted an honest and upfront conversation. I know for a fact that is what I have been seeking. I detest snidery and apologize for giving that opinion or attitude. You see, I believe that outside of the varsity playfield, unity of purpose is our greatest strength. The LCS, in my own opinion is not that boat with which we must all unite. Now you being an "unterwasser"  sailor should know that. Forget the ROTC hazing and all that. If I had a nickel for every time someone said, "here doggy" I would be up to my ears in Doggieisms. The Zumwalt navy failed and failed miserably. Sailors with beards are not Popeye in any sense of the word. Popeye loved "Olive Oil" and that was that! Where do we, go from there? How about "Damn the torpedo's and full steam ahead"! How about lets take those cocksuckers out of the picture? How about if you do not like that. you certainly will not be fond of this? Have you even looked to the book I mentioned and if not why not? A group of Airborne types, overly  confident of their strengths and  they found the errors of their ways and built a lasting reputation. Kinda like a bunch of Navy pukes finding out their strength is in ashcans, not "tincans". Come on Tory, stand up and be counted! You are needed at the end of hostilities, not the beginning. That is why you make the BIG retirement bucks. .


----------



## I amso IR

Speak, Tory, speak! Where are U. For the sake of all which is Holy, SPEAK!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

I amso IR said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he does use that phrase a hell of a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep! ROTC and all that shit. On ward, on ward, into the jaws of death, marched the 5000, or some such horseshit as that. Not to mention I am pushing a book about Airborne. 505th AIR, Ft Bragg, NC 1957, by God! The year of Sputnik and Russia and the USMC at Ft. Bragg, NC and their humiliation at Ft. Bragg during "Operation All American". Never forget the "Battle of Hay Street".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ward were you on, and in what hospital?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adrimirable Rocky. I did my best to humor you. You honestly seemed like a likeable guy who wanted an honest and upfront conversation. I know for a fact that is what I have been seeking. I detest snidery and apologize for giving that opinion or attitude. You see, I believe that outside of the varsity playfield, unity of purpose is our greatest strength. The LCS, in my own opinion is not that boat with which we must all unite. Now you being an "unterwasser"  sailor should know that. Forget the ROTC hazing and all that. If I had a nickel for every time someone said, "here doggy" I would be up to my ears in Doggieisms. The Zumwalt navy failed and failed miserably. Sailors with beards are not Popeye in any sense of the word. Popeye loved "Olive Oil" and that was that! Where do we, go from there? How about "Damn the torpedo's and full steam ahead"! How about lets take those cocksuckers out of the picture? How about if you do not like that. you certainly will not be fond of this? Have you even looked to the book I mentioned and if not why not? A group of Airborne types, overly  confident of their strengths and  they found the errors of their ways and built a lasting reputation. Kinda like a bunch of Navy pukes finding out their strength is in ashcans, not "tincans". Come on Tory, stand up and be counted! You are needed at the end of hostilities, not the beginning. That is why you make the BIG retirement bucks. .
Click to expand...


First, I was not offered the opportunity to retire before I was forced out by the Clinton administrations screw ups.

Second, I have not posted anything in regard to the LCS.  My brother is a training officer for the LCS squadron, so I know of the problems.

Third, I served on submarines, surface ships, and aircraft carriers all.  

Fourth,my daughter is a US Army Cavalry officer and I have been a volunteer OP4 for the Army for 9 years.

Fifth, have a great Navy day!


----------



## I amso IR

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he does use that phrase a hell of a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep! ROTC and all that shit. On ward, on ward, into the jaws of death, marched the 5000, or some such horseshit as that. Not to mention I am pushing a book about Airborne. 505th AIR, Ft Bragg, NC 1957, by God! The year of Sputnik and Russia and the USMC at Ft. Bragg, NC and their humiliation at Ft. Bragg during "Operation All American". Never forget the "Battle of Hay Street".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ward were you on, and in what hospital?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adrimirable Rocky. I did my best to humor you. You honestly seemed like a likeable guy who wanted an honest and upfront conversation. I know for a fact that is what I have been seeking. I detest snidery and apologize for giving that opinion or attitude. You see, I believe that outside of the varsity playfield, unity of purpose is our greatest strength. The LCS, in my own opinion is not that boat with which we must all unite. Now you being an "unterwasser"  sailor should know that. Forget the ROTC hazing and all that. If I had a nickel for every time someone said, "here doggy" I would be up to my ears in Doggieisms. The Zumwalt navy failed and failed miserably. Sailors with beards are not Popeye in any sense of the word. Popeye loved "Olive Oil" and that was that! Where do we, go from there? How about "Damn the torpedo's and full steam ahead"! How about lets take those cocksuckers out of the picture? How about if you do not like that. you certainly will not be fond of this? Have you even looked to the book I mentioned and if not why not? A group of Airborne types, overly  confident of their strengths and  they found the errors of their ways and built a lasting reputation. Kinda like a bunch of Navy pukes finding out their strength is in ashcans, not "tincans". Come on Tory, stand up and be counted! You are needed at the end of hostilities, not the beginning. That is why you make the BIG retirement bucks. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I was not offered the opportunity to retire before I was forced out by the Clinton administrations screw ups.
> 
> Second, I have not posted anything in regard to the LCS.  My brother is a training officer for the LCS squadron, so I know of the problems.
> 
> Third, I served on submarines, surface ships, and aircraft carriers all.
> 
> Fourth,my daughter is a US Army Cavalry officer and I have been a volunteer OP4 for the Army for 9 years.
> 
> Fifth, have a great Navy day!
Click to expand...


Thank you "Skipper" Took awhile however we have arrived at an honorable destination. Does your daughter fly the Apache or Blackhawk? Send her my best and the same to you. Again, please read the book, The Brave Ones. You will enjoy and learn some Cav stuff also.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

I amso IR said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he does use that phrase a hell of a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep! ROTC and all that shit. On ward, on ward, into the jaws of death, marched the 5000, or some such horseshit as that. Not to mention I am pushing a book about Airborne. 505th AIR, Ft Bragg, NC 1957, by God! The year of Sputnik and Russia and the USMC at Ft. Bragg, NC and their humiliation at Ft. Bragg during "Operation All American". Never forget the "Battle of Hay Street".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ward were you on, and in what hospital?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adrimirable Rocky. I did my best to humor you. You honestly seemed like a likeable guy who wanted an honest and upfront conversation. I know for a fact that is what I have been seeking. I detest snidery and apologize for giving that opinion or attitude. You see, I believe that outside of the varsity playfield, unity of purpose is our greatest strength. The LCS, in my own opinion is not that boat with which we must all unite. Now you being an "unterwasser"  sailor should know that. Forget the ROTC hazing and all that. If I had a nickel for every time someone said, "here doggy" I would be up to my ears in Doggieisms. The Zumwalt navy failed and failed miserably. Sailors with beards are not Popeye in any sense of the word. Popeye loved "Olive Oil" and that was that! Where do we, go from there? How about "Damn the torpedo's and full steam ahead"! How about lets take those cocksuckers out of the picture? How about if you do not like that. you certainly will not be fond of this? Have you even looked to the book I mentioned and if not why not? A group of Airborne types, overly  confident of their strengths and  they found the errors of their ways and built a lasting reputation. Kinda like a bunch of Navy pukes finding out their strength is in ashcans, not "tincans". Come on Tory, stand up and be counted! You are needed at the end of hostilities, not the beginning. That is why you make the BIG retirement bucks. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I was not offered the opportunity to retire before I was forced out by the Clinton administrations screw ups.
> 
> Second, I have not posted anything in regard to the LCS.  My brother is a training officer for the LCS squadron, so I know of the problems.
> 
> Third, I served on submarines, surface ships, and aircraft carriers all.
> 
> Fourth,my daughter is a US Army Cavalry officer and I have been a volunteer OP4 for the Army for 9 years.
> 
> Fifth, have a great Navy day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you "Skipper" Took awhile however we have arrived at an honorable destination. Does your daughter fly the Apache or Blackhawk? Send her my best and the same to you. Again, please read the book, The Brave Ones. You will enjoy and learn some Cav stuff also.
Click to expand...


I didn't say "Air Cavalry".  She is in the old fashioned Cavalry. The soldiers ride Strykers and she is a Transportation platoon leader, so she handles the trucks with the gear.


----------



## I amso IR

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep! ROTC and all that shit. On ward, on ward, into the jaws of death, marched the 5000, or some such horseshit as that. Not to mention I am pushing a book about Airborne. 505th AIR, Ft Bragg, NC 1957, by God! The year of Sputnik and Russia and the USMC at Ft. Bragg, NC and their humiliation at Ft. Bragg during "Operation All American". Never forget the "Battle of Hay Street".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ward were you on, and in what hospital?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adrimirable Rocky. I did my best to humor you. You honestly seemed like a likeable guy who wanted an honest and upfront conversation. I know for a fact that is what I have been seeking. I detest snidery and apologize for giving that opinion or attitude. You see, I believe that outside of the varsity playfield, unity of purpose is our greatest strength. The LCS, in my own opinion is not that boat with which we must all unite. Now you being an "unterwasser"  sailor should know that. Forget the ROTC hazing and all that. If I had a nickel for every time someone said, "here doggy" I would be up to my ears in Doggieisms. The Zumwalt navy failed and failed miserably. Sailors with beards are not Popeye in any sense of the word. Popeye loved "Olive Oil" and that was that! Where do we, go from there? How about "Damn the torpedo's and full steam ahead"! How about lets take those cocksuckers out of the picture? How about if you do not like that. you certainly will not be fond of this? Have you even looked to the book I mentioned and if not why not? A group of Airborne types, overly  confident of their strengths and  they found the errors of their ways and built a lasting reputation. Kinda like a bunch of Navy pukes finding out their strength is in ashcans, not "tincans". Come on Tory, stand up and be counted! You are needed at the end of hostilities, not the beginning. That is why you make the BIG retirement bucks. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I was not offered the opportunity to retire before I was forced out by the Clinton administrations screw ups.
> 
> Second, I have not posted anything in regard to the LCS.  My brother is a training officer for the LCS squadron, so I know of the problems.
> 
> Third, I served on submarines, surface ships, and aircraft carriers all.
> 
> Fourth,my daughter is a US Army Cavalry officer and I have been a volunteer OP4 for the Army for 9 years.
> 
> Fifth, have a great Navy day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you "Skipper" Took awhile however we have arrived at an honorable destination. Does your daughter fly the Apache or Blackhawk? Send her my best and the same to you. Again, please read the book, The Brave Ones. You will enjoy and learn some Cav stuff also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say "Air Cavalry".  She is in the old fashioned Cavalry. The soldiers ride Strykers and she is a Transportation platoon leader, so she handles the trucks with the gear.
Click to expand...


Please allow me to be the aways loved guy I am. My best to your daughter. TC is one of the toughest jobs in the Army. 24/7/365 on the go, no sleep, no hot chow and sleep in the cab with all of your gear. Trucks falling apart, breaking down, overloaded with class V supplies and Charlie eating your lunch. Know it well. Best regards, ISG


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
Click to expand...






No, I didn't.  But I have good eyes.  Not that they have to be all that good when the stupid ship is within range of an RPG-7 or simple artillery.  The entire idea of the LCS is stupid.  If you are operating close in to shore you don't need stealth.  You need ARMOR.  And lots of it.


----------



## westwall

Weatherman2020 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ships are not built for survivability anymore. One can debate the merits of the decision because both sides have good points. A battleship can take repeated hits, but costs a million a day to operate.  One of the biggest sea battles of WW2 was the battle of the Philippines, won by tin can destroyers and a few light carriers on sub duty against Jap battleships and heavy cruisers.
> 
> Personally, I like the idea of a lot of fast ships with firepower running around every ocean, even if one hit may sink them.
Click to expand...








The Battle Cruiser (eggshell with a hammer) concept was proven a failure at the Battle of Jutland way back in 1916.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he does use that phrase a hell of a lot.
Click to expand...






That's because it is still applicable.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> That's because it is still applicable.


Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

In modern warfare ships are detected by radar before visual, whether from radar on a ship, aircraft, or shore based. Therefore the ship with the smaller RCS has an advantage, both in detection and track/lock.

Same with aircraft, any  modern military radar will pick up another aircraft before it is in visual range. Lower RCS reducing the range of that detection, and limiting any link in the kill chain from track to lock to terminal that relies on RF detection is at an advantage.


----------



## Weatherman2020

westwall said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ships are not built for survivability anymore. One can debate the merits of the decision because both sides have good points. A battleship can take repeated hits, but costs a million a day to operate.  One of the biggest sea battles of WW2 was the battle of the Philippines, won by tin can destroyers and a few light carriers on sub duty against Jap battleships and heavy cruisers.
> 
> Personally, I like the idea of a lot of fast ships with firepower running around every ocean, even if one hit may sink them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Battle Cruiser (eggshell with a hammer) concept was proven a failure at the Battle of Jutland way back in 1916.
Click to expand...

Battle off Samar, 1944
American:
6 escort carriers
3 destroyers 
4 destroyer escorts

Japanese:
4 battleships
6 heavy cruisers 
2 light cruisers
11 destroyers

Result was a decisive American victory.


----------



## westwall

Weatherman2020 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ships are not built for survivability anymore. One can debate the merits of the decision because both sides have good points. A battleship can take repeated hits, but costs a million a day to operate.  One of the biggest sea battles of WW2 was the battle of the Philippines, won by tin can destroyers and a few light carriers on sub duty against Jap battleships and heavy cruisers.
> 
> Personally, I like the idea of a lot of fast ships with firepower running around every ocean, even if one hit may sink them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Battle Cruiser (eggshell with a hammer) concept was proven a failure at the Battle of Jutland way back in 1916.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Battle off Samar, 1944
> American:
> 6 escort carriers
> 3 destroyers
> 4 destroyer escorts
> 
> Japanese:
> 4 battleships
> 6 heavy cruisers
> 2 light cruisers
> 11 destroyers
> 
> Result was a decisive American victory.
Click to expand...







Ahhhh, if only it were the hulls that counted.  I see you are ignoring the* 168* aircraft the escort carriers were equipped with.   Take away those airplanes and the picture changes dramatically don't you think?


----------



## Weatherman2020

westwall said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ships are not built for survivability anymore. One can debate the merits of the decision because both sides have good points. A battleship can take repeated hits, but costs a million a day to operate.  One of the biggest sea battles of WW2 was the battle of the Philippines, won by tin can destroyers and a few light carriers on sub duty against Jap battleships and heavy cruisers.
> 
> Personally, I like the idea of a lot of fast ships with firepower running around every ocean, even if one hit may sink them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Battle Cruiser (eggshell with a hammer) concept was proven a failure at the Battle of Jutland way back in 1916.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Battle off Samar, 1944
> American:
> 6 escort carriers
> 3 destroyers
> 4 destroyer escorts
> 
> Japanese:
> 4 battleships
> 6 heavy cruisers
> 2 light cruisers
> 11 destroyers
> 
> Result was a decisive American victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, if only it were the hulls that counted.  I see you are ignoring the* 168* aircraft the escort carriers were equipped with.   Take away those airplanes and the picture changes dramatically don't you think?
Click to expand...

Only validates my point further. In 2 weeks in Dec 41 Japan sunk or put out of commission every allied capital ship available in the Pacific using just air power. 

So tell me again how a battleship will do in a war in 2020? By 43 they were nothing but floating shore bombardment platforms.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it is still applicable.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
> 
> In modern warfare ships are detected by radar before visual, whether from radar on a ship, aircraft, or shore based. Therefore the ship with the smaller RCS has an advantage, both in detection and track/lock.
> 
> Same with aircraft, any  modern military radar will pick up another aircraft before it is in visual range. Lower RCS reducing the range of that detection, and limiting any link in the kill chain from track to lock to terminal that relies on RF detection is at an advantage.
Click to expand...






If a ship approaches within visual range of the coast, which is the stated purpose of the LCS, all the stealth tech in the world is useless.


----------



## westwall

Weatherman2020 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Ships are not built for survivability anymore. One can debate the merits of the decision because both sides have good points. A battleship can take repeated hits, but costs a million a day to operate.  One of the biggest sea battles of WW2 was the battle of the Philippines, won by tin can destroyers and a few light carriers on sub duty against Jap battleships and heavy cruisers.
> 
> Personally, I like the idea of a lot of fast ships with firepower running around every ocean, even if one hit may sink them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Battle Cruiser (eggshell with a hammer) concept was proven a failure at the Battle of Jutland way back in 1916.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Battle off Samar, 1944
> American:
> 6 escort carriers
> 3 destroyers
> 4 destroyer escorts
> 
> Japanese:
> 4 battleships
> 6 heavy cruisers
> 2 light cruisers
> 11 destroyers
> 
> Result was a decisive American victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, if only it were the hulls that counted.  I see you are ignoring the* 168* aircraft the escort carriers were equipped with.   Take away those airplanes and the picture changes dramatically don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only validates my point further. In 2 weeks in Dec 41 Japan sunk or put out of commission every allied capital ship available in the Pacific using just air power.
> 
> So tell me again how a battleship will do in a war in 2020? By 43 they were nothing but floating shore bombardment platforms.
Click to expand...







Currently, there is nothing in the inventory of ANY nation, save for torpedo's, that can harm a US battleship.  As warships have changed, so has the ordnance designed to destroy them.  A Exocet missile, which sunk one warship, a container ship and heavily damaged another warship during the Falklands war, would do nothing more than ding the paint and do damage to the various antennas on an Iowa Class battleship.  

But, pleas note, i am not advocating bringing back battleships.  However, I do advocate a smaller, purpose built ARMORED ship, for operating close in to shore.  Right now a Somali pirate can do major damage to an LCS with an RPG.  That's retarded.


----------



## Weatherman2020

westwall said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ships are not built for survivability anymore. One can debate the merits of the decision because both sides have good points. A battleship can take repeated hits, but costs a million a day to operate.  One of the biggest sea battles of WW2 was the battle of the Philippines, won by tin can destroyers and a few light carriers on sub duty against Jap battleships and heavy cruisers.
> 
> Personally, I like the idea of a lot of fast ships with firepower running around every ocean, even if one hit may sink them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Battle Cruiser (eggshell with a hammer) concept was proven a failure at the Battle of Jutland way back in 1916.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Battle off Samar, 1944
> American:
> 6 escort carriers
> 3 destroyers
> 4 destroyer escorts
> 
> Japanese:
> 4 battleships
> 6 heavy cruisers
> 2 light cruisers
> 11 destroyers
> 
> Result was a decisive American victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, if only it were the hulls that counted.  I see you are ignoring the* 168* aircraft the escort carriers were equipped with.   Take away those airplanes and the picture changes dramatically don't you think?
Click to expand...

Least your forget the tin cans putting torpedos in a heavy cruiser, thus putting out of commission two cruisers as one moved in for rescue operations.


----------



## westwall

Weatherman2020 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Ships are not built for survivability anymore. One can debate the merits of the decision because both sides have good points. A battleship can take repeated hits, but costs a million a day to operate.  One of the biggest sea battles of WW2 was the battle of the Philippines, won by tin can destroyers and a few light carriers on sub duty against Jap battleships and heavy cruisers.
> 
> Personally, I like the idea of a lot of fast ships with firepower running around every ocean, even if one hit may sink them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Battle Cruiser (eggshell with a hammer) concept was proven a failure at the Battle of Jutland way back in 1916.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Battle off Samar, 1944
> American:
> 6 escort carriers
> 3 destroyers
> 4 destroyer escorts
> 
> Japanese:
> 4 battleships
> 6 heavy cruisers
> 2 light cruisers
> 11 destroyers
> 
> Result was a decisive American victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, if only it were the hulls that counted.  I see you are ignoring the* 168* aircraft the escort carriers were equipped with.   Take away those airplanes and the picture changes dramatically don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Least your forget the tin cans putting torpedos in a heavy cruiser, thus putting out of commission two cruisers as one moved in for rescue operations.
Click to expand...






All because of the actions of AIRCRAFT.  The battle was a retreat by the American ships, and the gallant sacrifice of the Gambier Bay, all so that the aircraft could pound the Japanese into submission.  Add to that the temerity of the usually aggressive Japanese, and that is why we won that battle.  The Japanese chickened out.  Had they pushed the attack they would have eventually won, they had no idea that that was all they were facing.


----------



## xyz

It seems LCS can be used against submarines. I'm not sure the US has enough submarine hunters given the huge amount of coastline.

Although I guess it might be cheaper to have ships specifically built for that purpose. Not sure.


----------



## westwall

xyz said:


> It seems LCS can be used against submarines. I'm not sure the US has enough submarine hunters given the huge amount of coastline.
> 
> Although I guess it might be cheaper to have ships specifically built for that purpose. Not sure.








Helicopters and airplanes are the best ASW weapons bar none.


----------



## xyz

westwall said:


> xyz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems LCS can be used against submarines. I'm not sure the US has enough submarine hunters given the huge amount of coastline.
> 
> Although I guess it might be cheaper to have ships specifically built for that purpose. Not sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helicopters and airplanes are the best ASW weapons bar none.
Click to expand...

What about detection?


----------



## westwall

xyz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xyz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems LCS can be used against submarines. I'm not sure the US has enough submarine hunters given the huge amount of coastline.
> 
> Although I guess it might be cheaper to have ships specifically built for that purpose. Not sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helicopters and airplanes are the best ASW weapons bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about detection?
Click to expand...







P3 Orion with a MAD boom, and sonobuoys, will be bale to cover thousands of square miles in hours.


----------



## Weatherman2020

westwall said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ships are not built for survivability anymore. One can debate the merits of the decision because both sides have good points. A battleship can take repeated hits, but costs a million a day to operate.  One of the biggest sea battles of WW2 was the battle of the Philippines, won by tin can destroyers and a few light carriers on sub duty against Jap battleships and heavy cruisers.
> 
> Personally, I like the idea of a lot of fast ships with firepower running around every ocean, even if one hit may sink them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Battle Cruiser (eggshell with a hammer) concept was proven a failure at the Battle of Jutland way back in 1916.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Battle off Samar, 1944
> American:
> 6 escort carriers
> 3 destroyers
> 4 destroyer escorts
> 
> Japanese:
> 4 battleships
> 6 heavy cruisers
> 2 light cruisers
> 11 destroyers
> 
> Result was a decisive American victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, if only it were the hulls that counted.  I see you are ignoring the* 168* aircraft the escort carriers were equipped with.   Take away those airplanes and the picture changes dramatically don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Least your forget the tin cans putting torpedos in a heavy cruiser, thus putting out of commission two cruisers as one moved in for rescue operations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All because of the actions of AIRCRAFT.  The battle was a retreat by the American ships, and the gallant sacrifice of the Gambier Bay, all so that the aircraft could pound the Japanese into submission.  Add to that the temerity of the usually aggressive Japanese, and that is why we won that battle.  The Japanese chickened out.  Had they pushed the attack they would have eventually won, they had no idea that that was all they were facing.
Click to expand...

Aircraft came into play later. It started with the retreat and the destroyers turning around and doing a charge of the light brigade.


----------



## westwall

Weatherman2020 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Battle Cruiser (eggshell with a hammer) concept was proven a failure at the Battle of Jutland way back in 1916.
> 
> 
> 
> Battle off Samar, 1944
> American:
> 6 escort carriers
> 3 destroyers
> 4 destroyer escorts
> 
> Japanese:
> 4 battleships
> 6 heavy cruisers
> 2 light cruisers
> 11 destroyers
> 
> Result was a decisive American victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, if only it were the hulls that counted.  I see you are ignoring the* 168* aircraft the escort carriers were equipped with.   Take away those airplanes and the picture changes dramatically don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Least your forget the tin cans putting torpedos in a heavy cruiser, thus putting out of commission two cruisers as one moved in for rescue operations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All because of the actions of AIRCRAFT.  The battle was a retreat by the American ships, and the gallant sacrifice of the Gambier Bay, all so that the aircraft could pound the Japanese into submission.  Add to that the temerity of the usually aggressive Japanese, and that is why we won that battle.  The Japanese chickened out.  Had they pushed the attack they would have eventually won, they had no idea that that was all they were facing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aircraft came into play later. It started with the retreat and the destroyers turning around and doing a charge of the light brigade.
Click to expand...







Untrue.  The aircraft were in action immediately and it was their action that caused the Japanese ships to have to manoeuvre frantically to avoid the bombs they were dropping.  That bought all sorts of time for the DD's to get close to launch their torps, and allowed the main force to escape.  First into a rain squall, and then to try and reach Taffy 2 which was 30 miles to the south.

Virtually all of the critical damage done to the Japanese was caused by aircraft.  The DD's that attacked suffered terrible losses, I think two or three were sunk, and the only reason why more escort carriers weren't sunk is the Japanese kept hitting them with AP rounds that passed all the way through the ships without detonating.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't.  But I have good eyes.  Not that they have to be all that good when the stupid ship is within range of an RPG-7 or simple artillery.  The entire idea of the LCS is stupid.  If you are operating close in to shore you don't need stealth.  You need ARMOR.  And lots of it.
Click to expand...


How far can you see in the daylight standing on beach?

How about at night?

How about when it is foggy or raining heavily?

What is the effective range of an RPG-7?

You have no intellectual capacity to see how ignorant your assumptions are.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it is still applicable.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
> 
> In modern warfare ships are detected by radar before visual, whether from radar on a ship, aircraft, or shore based. Therefore the ship with the smaller RCS has an advantage, both in detection and track/lock.
> 
> Same with aircraft, any  modern military radar will pick up another aircraft before it is in visual range. Lower RCS reducing the range of that detection, and limiting any link in the kill chain from track to lock to terminal that relies on RF detection is at an advantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a ship approaches within visual range of the coast, which is the stated purpose of the LCS, all the stealth tech in the world is useless.
Click to expand...


You have got to get there undetected first!

My God, you are dense!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> xyz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xyz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems LCS can be used against submarines. I'm not sure the US has enough submarine hunters given the huge amount of coastline.
> 
> Although I guess it might be cheaper to have ships specifically built for that purpose. Not sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helicopters and airplanes are the best ASW weapons bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about detection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P3 Orion with a MAD boom, and sonobuoys, will be bale to cover thousands of square miles in hours.
Click to expand...


The P-3s are 1960s era aircraft.  The newer aircraft is the P-8 Poseidon.

Boeing P-8 Poseidon - Wikipedia


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xyz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xyz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems LCS can be used against submarines. I'm not sure the US has enough submarine hunters given the huge amount of coastline.
> 
> Although I guess it might be cheaper to have ships specifically built for that purpose. Not sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helicopters and airplanes are the best ASW weapons bar none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about detection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P3 Orion with a MAD boom, and sonobuoys, will be bale to cover thousands of square miles in hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The P-3s are 1960s era aircraft.  The newer aircraft is the P-8 Poseidon.
> 
> Boeing P-8 Poseidon - Wikipedia
Click to expand...





There are still over 100 P-3s operational.  The last one is expected to be retired in 2023.  By that time there will be around 117 of the P8's in the inventory.  So, currently the P-3 is still the most prolific of the USN's maritime patrol fleet.


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go with that Mk I eyeball bullshit!  I guess you never served on a ship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't.  But I have good eyes.  Not that they have to be all that good when the stupid ship is within range of an RPG-7 or simple artillery.  The entire idea of the LCS is stupid.  If you are operating close in to shore you don't need stealth.  You need ARMOR.  And lots of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far can you see in the daylight standing on beach?
> 
> How about at night?
> 
> How about when it is foggy or raining heavily?
> 
> What is the effective range of an RPG-7?
> 
> You have no intellectual capacity to see how ignorant your assumptions are.
Click to expand...








You are incredibly arrogant to believe that an unarmored vessel, within range of a 105 howitzer on the beach is a threat.  The British Navy learned that lesson in WWI, and the Argentine Navy learned that lesson on South Georgia Island.  

Next.


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it is still applicable.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
> 
> In modern warfare ships are detected by radar before visual, whether from radar on a ship, aircraft, or shore based. Therefore the ship with the smaller RCS has an advantage, both in detection and track/lock.
> 
> Same with aircraft, any  modern military radar will pick up another aircraft before it is in visual range. Lower RCS reducing the range of that detection, and limiting any link in the kill chain from track to lock to terminal that relies on RF detection is at an advantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a ship approaches within visual range of the coast, which is the stated purpose of the LCS, all the stealth tech in the world is useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have got to get there undetected first!
> 
> My God, you are dense!
Click to expand...








Yeah, sure.  That wake is a real bitch to hide.  My gosh but you're fucking stupid.


----------



## eagle1462010

I will never be a fan of aluminum hulls.  They have stress crack problems and it is even worse in colder waters.  Electrolysis is also a much larger problem to aluminum hulls.  If not watched very carefully to ensure stray currents to the hull it will PIT the Hull to a very large degree.

I've helped build aluminum hull oil field supply boats in my time, and have had to repair electrolysis problems on a aluminum car ferry from Austals BTW........10 years Navy here.  Stick the aluminum hull boats where the sun doesn't shine.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it is still applicable.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
> 
> In modern warfare ships are detected by radar before visual, whether from radar on a ship, aircraft, or shore based. Therefore the ship with the smaller RCS has an advantage, both in detection and track/lock.
> 
> Same with aircraft, any  modern military radar will pick up another aircraft before it is in visual range. Lower RCS reducing the range of that detection, and limiting any link in the kill chain from track to lock to terminal that relies on RF detection is at an advantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a ship approaches within visual range of the coast, which is the stated purpose of the LCS, all the stealth tech in the world is useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have got to get there undetected first!
> 
> My God, you are dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure.  That wake is a real bitch to hide.  My gosh but you're fucking stupid.
Click to expand...


A wake?  How do you see a wake in the dark?  In the fog?  At a much slower speed?

I think you are the biggest idiot I have encountered.  Did you recently suffer a head injury?  No one should be that stupid.


----------



## eagle1462010

The Navy's hull crack problem | DoD Buzz

The cruisers, though, also have had to deal with many cracks as their years in service wore on. Which raised the question for one of our phriend Phib’s correspondents — is LCS fated to be as prone to structural cracks as the cruisers are? Here’s what he wrote about the Freedom:

Cracks in the port and starboard forward corners of the deckhouse right about the bi-metallic and steel coming (same arrangement as found on FFG and CG) is telling us that the entire front of the house is wobbling from side to side. More or less, the aluminum is being compressed down, then stretched up. Eventually metal fatigue will have its way and you’ll have cracks there. Navy will try to fix this by establishing “critical weld procedures” for certain areas where cracks show up (from bad design and lack of stress analysis) and by inserting thicker plates in these locations. As you can guess, the problem hasn’t gone away; the cracks will move above, inboard or aft of the thicker plate. It’s the same system they’ve used on FFGs and CGs when they don’t want to admit they had faulty design.

Well, the reality is that USS Freedom doesn’t—after more than six months in port, the ship has only been out to sea twice this year, and during both trips the engines and other key equipment failed. This is a far cry from what the Navy has been telling taxpayers: it’s claimed to Congress that both variants of the LCS are performing well.* It’s time for the Navy to fess up that this ship is nothing but a busted, leaky boat with a history of design and equipment failures. With the LCS program expected to cost taxpayers $120 billion, it simply doesn’t make sense to keep this unnecessary vessel.*


----------



## eagle1462010

Wake............

I HEAR YOU....................

Surface Ship-Wake Detection Using Active Sonar and One-Class Support Vector Machine - IEEE Xplore Document


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it is still applicable.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
> 
> In modern warfare ships are detected by radar before visual, whether from radar on a ship, aircraft, or shore based. Therefore the ship with the smaller RCS has an advantage, both in detection and track/lock.
> 
> Same with aircraft, any  modern military radar will pick up another aircraft before it is in visual range. Lower RCS reducing the range of that detection, and limiting any link in the kill chain from track to lock to terminal that relies on RF detection is at an advantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a ship approaches within visual range of the coast, which is the stated purpose of the LCS, all the stealth tech in the world is useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have got to get there undetected first!
> 
> My God, you are dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure.  That wake is a real bitch to hide.  My gosh but you're fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wake?  How do you see a wake in the dark?  In the fog?  At a much slower speed?
> 
> I think you are the biggest idiot I have encountered.  Did you recently suffer a head injury?  No one should be that stupid.
Click to expand...







Now I know you're stupid.  Stupid beyond belief.  They have been tracking fleets by their wakes for YEARS silly boy.  SAR, and optical both.  From space nimrod.  I think it was you who were dropped on your head.  And from a great height.




*Abstract*
Ships and their wakes can often be detected in the high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery provided by satellites. Image processing techniques can be used to enhance extremely weak ship wake patterns, but occasionally, the ship in the SAR image remains invisible. In the SAR image below (Figure 1), two trailing, dark, turbulent wakes are seen. In addition to the dark, turbulent wakes, one side of a ship's Kelvin wake can sometimes be seen as a bright line. One of the ships is seen as a bright spot caused by backscattering at the end of the trail above A in Figure 

Mystery ship detected in SAR image
Ship Wakes SAR Imagery


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
> 
> In modern warfare ships are detected by radar before visual, whether from radar on a ship, aircraft, or shore based. Therefore the ship with the smaller RCS has an advantage, both in detection and track/lock.
> 
> Same with aircraft, any  modern military radar will pick up another aircraft before it is in visual range. Lower RCS reducing the range of that detection, and limiting any link in the kill chain from track to lock to terminal that relies on RF detection is at an advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a ship approaches within visual range of the coast, which is the stated purpose of the LCS, all the stealth tech in the world is useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have got to get there undetected first!
> 
> My God, you are dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure.  That wake is a real bitch to hide.  My gosh but you're fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wake?  How do you see a wake in the dark?  In the fog?  At a much slower speed?
> 
> I think you are the biggest idiot I have encountered.  Did you recently suffer a head injury?  No one should be that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know you're stupid.  Stupid beyond belief.  They have been tracking fleets by their wakes for YEARS silly boy.  SAR, and optical both.  From space nimrod.  I think it was you who were dropped on your head.  And from a great height.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> Ships and their wakes can often be detected in the high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery provided by satellites. Image processing techniques can be used to enhance extremely weak ship wake patterns, but occasionally, the ship in the SAR image remains invisible. In the SAR image below (Figure 1), two trailing, dark, turbulent wakes are seen. In addition to the dark, turbulent wakes, one side of a ship's Kelvin wake can sometimes be seen as a bright line. One of the ships is seen as a bright spot caused by backscattering at the end of the trail above A in Figure
> 
> Mystery ship detected in SAR image
> Ship Wakes SAR Imagery
Click to expand...


I hope you are planning on being on the next Olympic team.  You have leaped from RPG-7s to howitzers to satellites with synthetic aperture radars.

I will remind you of you comment about the Mk 1 eyeball.  Stick to the argument.

I am sure Somali pirates have that kind of equipment at their disposal.  What a fucking nimrod!

You simply are a Google-minded idiot, impressed with your ability to provide an answer, no matter how stupid, to any rebuttal you are given.

You really are one fucked-up individual.  I have one major suggestion for you!

Grow up!


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a ship approaches within visual range of the coast, which is the stated purpose of the LCS, all the stealth tech in the world is useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have got to get there undetected first!
> 
> My God, you are dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure.  That wake is a real bitch to hide.  My gosh but you're fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wake?  How do you see a wake in the dark?  In the fog?  At a much slower speed?
> 
> I think you are the biggest idiot I have encountered.  Did you recently suffer a head injury?  No one should be that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know you're stupid.  Stupid beyond belief.  They have been tracking fleets by their wakes for YEARS silly boy.  SAR, and optical both.  From space nimrod.  I think it was you who were dropped on your head.  And from a great height.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> Ships and their wakes can often be detected in the high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery provided by satellites. Image processing techniques can be used to enhance extremely weak ship wake patterns, but occasionally, the ship in the SAR image remains invisible. In the SAR image below (Figure 1), two trailing, dark, turbulent wakes are seen. In addition to the dark, turbulent wakes, one side of a ship's Kelvin wake can sometimes be seen as a bright line. One of the ships is seen as a bright spot caused by backscattering at the end of the trail above A in Figure
> 
> Mystery ship detected in SAR image
> Ship Wakes SAR Imagery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you are planning on being on the next Olympic team.  You have leaped from RPG-7s to howitzers to satellites with synthetic aperture radars.
> 
> I will remind you of you comment about the Mk 1 eyeball.  Stick to the argument.
> 
> I am sure Somali pirates have that kind of equipment at their disposal.  What a fucking nimrod!
> 
> You simply are a Google-minded idiot, impressed with your ability to provide an answer, no matter how stupid, to any rebuttal you are given.
> 
> You really are one fucked-up individual.  I have one major suggestion for you!
> 
> Grow up!
Click to expand...








I grew up a long time ago silly girl.  I also have a lot more reading under my belt than you.  You're like the admirals who wanted to fight the battleship war when the aircraft carrier war was steaming right at them.  In other words, you're obsolete.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> If a ship approaches within visual range of the coast, which is the stated purpose of the LCS, all the stealth tech in the world is useless.


This is false. The original stated purpose of LCS was to be able to operate in the littoral zone and have a modular design to enable_ "anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, anti-surface warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, homeland defense, maritime intercept, special operations, and logistics." _There are all kinds of different definitions for "littoral zone" but nothing in LCS design or mission says anything about operating within visual range of the coast.

I've been right on the beach at night and been unable to see ships I know were anchored off the coast. The ocean is a bit dark at night.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Currently, there is nothing in the inventory of ANY nation, save for torpedo's, that can harm a US battleship.


This is incredibly naive. A modern 1000 or 2,000l lb bomb delivered to the deck or superstructure of a US battleship could cause extensive harm. There were bombs that caused extensive damage to Yamato way back in 1945 before she was finally sunk by torpedoes. They destroyed turrets, wrecked the radar room, punched a hole in the deck.

Many modern weapons either come from a high angle or pop up for a dive, they'd be hitting New Jersey where it is weakest in it's deck armor. You think the commander of a NJ class would think himself incapable of being harmed by a cruise missile diving at 600 mph with a 1,000 lb warhead? Nope, nope, nope.



westwall said:


> Right now a Somali pirate can do major damage to an LCS with an RPG.  That's retarded.


If the LCS sat still and didn't defend itself, which makes this a silly point.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> They have been tracking fleets by their wakes for YEARS silly boy.  SAR, and optical both.  From space nimrod.


So much for Mk-1 Eyeball.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have been tracking fleets by their wakes for YEARS silly boy.  SAR, and optical both.  From space nimrod.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for Mk-1 Eyeball.
Click to expand...






Look up "littoral" and get back to us....


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, there is nothing in the inventory of ANY nation, save for torpedo's, that can harm a US battleship.
> 
> 
> 
> This is incredibly naive. A modern 1000 or 2,000l lb bomb delivered to the deck or superstructure of a US battleship could cause extensive harm. There were bombs that caused extensive damage to Yamato way back in 1945 before she was finally sunk by torpedoes. They destroyed turrets, wrecked the radar room, punched a hole in the deck.
> 
> Many modern weapons either come from a high angle or pop up for a dive, they'd be hitting New Jersey where it is weakest in it's deck armor. You think the commander of a NJ class would think himself incapable of being harmed by a cruise missile diving at 600 mph with a 1,000 lb warhead? Nope, nope, nope.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now a Somali pirate can do major damage to an LCS with an RPG.  That's retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the LCS sat still and didn't defend itself, which makes this a silly point.
Click to expand...






No, it wouldn't.  The standard high capacity bomb will blow away the teak decking and leave a scorch mark.  An Exocet missile, impacting at the perfect angle, and with the maximum retained propellant impacting at VMAX will penetrate 3.5 inches of armor.  Belt armor on a Iowa Class is 12.5 inches.  Turret face and conning tower armor is 17 inches.  The only thing that would suffer from a missile impact are the various antennas, the missile launch boxes and the secondary 5"/38 mounts.  All other areas of the ship are immune to missile strike.  Deck armor is 7.5 inches with a secondary splinter deck of 2.5 inches so even if it was hit by the biggest Soviet era anti ship missile the damage would be negligible.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have got to get there undetected first!
> 
> My God, you are dense!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure.  That wake is a real bitch to hide.  My gosh but you're fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wake?  How do you see a wake in the dark?  In the fog?  At a much slower speed?
> 
> I think you are the biggest idiot I have encountered.  Did you recently suffer a head injury?  No one should be that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know you're stupid.  Stupid beyond belief.  They have been tracking fleets by their wakes for YEARS silly boy.  SAR, and optical both.  From space nimrod.  I think it was you who were dropped on your head.  And from a great height.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> Ships and their wakes can often be detected in the high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery provided by satellites. Image processing techniques can be used to enhance extremely weak ship wake patterns, but occasionally, the ship in the SAR image remains invisible. In the SAR image below (Figure 1), two trailing, dark, turbulent wakes are seen. In addition to the dark, turbulent wakes, one side of a ship's Kelvin wake can sometimes be seen as a bright line. One of the ships is seen as a bright spot caused by backscattering at the end of the trail above A in Figure
> 
> Mystery ship detected in SAR image
> Ship Wakes SAR Imagery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you are planning on being on the next Olympic team.  You have leaped from RPG-7s to howitzers to satellites with synthetic aperture radars.
> 
> I will remind you of you comment about the Mk 1 eyeball.  Stick to the argument.
> 
> I am sure Somali pirates have that kind of equipment at their disposal.  What a fucking nimrod!
> 
> You simply are a Google-minded idiot, impressed with your ability to provide an answer, no matter how stupid, to any rebuttal you are given.
> 
> You really are one fucked-up individual.  I have one major suggestion for you!
> 
> Grow up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up a long time ago silly girl.  I also have a lot more reading under my belt than you.  You're like the admirals who wanted to fight the battleship war when the aircraft carrier war was steaming right at them.  In other words, you're obsolete.
Click to expand...


So you can't explain why you cannot follow a conversation, why you cannot back up a single assertion you have made, why you cannot answer simple questions, and you wonder why I think you need to grow up?

You may be older than dirt and dumber than dirt as well.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have been tracking fleets by their wakes for YEARS silly boy.  SAR, and optical both.  From space nimrod.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for Mk-1 Eyeball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up "littoral" and get back to us....
Click to expand...



It means near shore.  That doesn't mean steaming through, 50 yards off shore, in broad daylight, under an artillery barrage, dumbass!


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have been tracking fleets by their wakes for YEARS silly boy.  SAR, and optical both.  From space nimrod.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for Mk-1 Eyeball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up "littoral" and get back to us....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It means near shore.  That doesn't mean steaming through, 50 yards off shore, in broad daylight, under an artillery barrage, dumbass!
Click to expand...







No, but it means close enough so that a basic artillery piece can knock you on your obviously corpulent ass.


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure.  That wake is a real bitch to hide.  My gosh but you're fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wake?  How do you see a wake in the dark?  In the fog?  At a much slower speed?
> 
> I think you are the biggest idiot I have encountered.  Did you recently suffer a head injury?  No one should be that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know you're stupid.  Stupid beyond belief.  They have been tracking fleets by their wakes for YEARS silly boy.  SAR, and optical both.  From space nimrod.  I think it was you who were dropped on your head.  And from a great height.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> Ships and their wakes can often be detected in the high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery provided by satellites. Image processing techniques can be used to enhance extremely weak ship wake patterns, but occasionally, the ship in the SAR image remains invisible. In the SAR image below (Figure 1), two trailing, dark, turbulent wakes are seen. In addition to the dark, turbulent wakes, one side of a ship's Kelvin wake can sometimes be seen as a bright line. One of the ships is seen as a bright spot caused by backscattering at the end of the trail above A in Figure
> 
> Mystery ship detected in SAR image
> Ship Wakes SAR Imagery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you are planning on being on the next Olympic team.  You have leaped from RPG-7s to howitzers to satellites with synthetic aperture radars.
> 
> I will remind you of you comment about the Mk 1 eyeball.  Stick to the argument.
> 
> I am sure Somali pirates have that kind of equipment at their disposal.  What a fucking nimrod!
> 
> You simply are a Google-minded idiot, impressed with your ability to provide an answer, no matter how stupid, to any rebuttal you are given.
> 
> You really are one fucked-up individual.  I have one major suggestion for you!
> 
> Grow up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up a long time ago silly girl.  I also have a lot more reading under my belt than you.  You're like the admirals who wanted to fight the battleship war when the aircraft carrier war was steaming right at them.  In other words, you're obsolete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't explain why you cannot follow a conversation, why you cannot back up a single assertion you have made, why you cannot answer simple questions, and you wonder why I think you need to grow up?
> 
> You may be older than dirt and dumber than dirt as well.
Click to expand...







I follow conversations quite well.  How about you engage in one.  The subject is what a worthless piece of shit the LCS is.  Provably so.  Instead of hurling insults and trying to fight a war from 100 years ago, how about you address the subject matter.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have been tracking fleets by their wakes for YEARS silly boy.  SAR, and optical both.  From space nimrod.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for Mk-1 Eyeball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up "littoral" and get back to us....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It means near shore.  That doesn't mean steaming through, 50 yards off shore, in broad daylight, under an artillery barrage, dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it means close enough so that a basic artillery piece can knock you on your obviously corpulent ass.
Click to expand...


Corpulent?  Man, those eyes of yours are superhuman!  You can see me?  Tell us what I am doing right now!  My middle finger is extended and I am mouthing two words.  Can you tell what they are?

Also, if the air wing has done their job, there will not be any artillery!  If not, why can't the LCS use their gun?

You have got to be the biggest poser on this message board.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wake?  How do you see a wake in the dark?  In the fog?  At a much slower speed?
> 
> I think you are the biggest idiot I have encountered.  Did you recently suffer a head injury?  No one should be that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know you're stupid.  Stupid beyond belief.  They have been tracking fleets by their wakes for YEARS silly boy.  SAR, and optical both.  From space nimrod.  I think it was you who were dropped on your head.  And from a great height.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> Ships and their wakes can often be detected in the high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery provided by satellites. Image processing techniques can be used to enhance extremely weak ship wake patterns, but occasionally, the ship in the SAR image remains invisible. In the SAR image below (Figure 1), two trailing, dark, turbulent wakes are seen. In addition to the dark, turbulent wakes, one side of a ship's Kelvin wake can sometimes be seen as a bright line. One of the ships is seen as a bright spot caused by backscattering at the end of the trail above A in Figure
> 
> Mystery ship detected in SAR image
> Ship Wakes SAR Imagery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you are planning on being on the next Olympic team.  You have leaped from RPG-7s to howitzers to satellites with synthetic aperture radars.
> 
> I will remind you of you comment about the Mk 1 eyeball.  Stick to the argument.
> 
> I am sure Somali pirates have that kind of equipment at their disposal.  What a fucking nimrod!
> 
> You simply are a Google-minded idiot, impressed with your ability to provide an answer, no matter how stupid, to any rebuttal you are given.
> 
> You really are one fucked-up individual.  I have one major suggestion for you!
> 
> Grow up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up a long time ago silly girl.  I also have a lot more reading under my belt than you.  You're like the admirals who wanted to fight the battleship war when the aircraft carrier war was steaming right at them.  In other words, you're obsolete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't explain why you cannot follow a conversation, why you cannot back up a single assertion you have made, why you cannot answer simple questions, and you wonder why I think you need to grow up?
> 
> You may be older than dirt and dumber than dirt as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I follow conversations quite well.  How about you engage in one.  The subject is what a worthless piece of shit the LCS is.  Provably so.  Instead of hurling insults and trying to fight a war from 100 years ago, how about you address the subject matter.
Click to expand...



No, as you would see if you read the comments and reactions from the other message board posters on this thread.  You are embarrassing yourself quite well.


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have been tracking fleets by their wakes for YEARS silly boy.  SAR, and optical both.  From space nimrod.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for Mk-1 Eyeball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up "littoral" and get back to us....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It means near shore.  That doesn't mean steaming through, 50 yards off shore, in broad daylight, under an artillery barrage, dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it means close enough so that a basic artillery piece can knock you on your obviously corpulent ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corpulent?  Man, those eyes of yours are superhuman!  You can see me?  Tell us what I am doing right now!  My middle finger is extended and I am mouthing two words.  Can you tell what they are?
> 
> Also, if the air wing has done their job, there will not be any artillery!  If not, why can't the LCS use their gun?
> 
> You have got to be the biggest poser on this message board.
Click to expand...






"IF", if, if.  Care to tell me when the military is able to do everything they are supposed to 100% of the time?  Like I said, you deal in fantasy.


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know you're stupid.  Stupid beyond belief.  They have been tracking fleets by their wakes for YEARS silly boy.  SAR, and optical both.  From space nimrod.  I think it was you who were dropped on your head.  And from a great height.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> Ships and their wakes can often be detected in the high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery provided by satellites. Image processing techniques can be used to enhance extremely weak ship wake patterns, but occasionally, the ship in the SAR image remains invisible. In the SAR image below (Figure 1), two trailing, dark, turbulent wakes are seen. In addition to the dark, turbulent wakes, one side of a ship's Kelvin wake can sometimes be seen as a bright line. One of the ships is seen as a bright spot caused by backscattering at the end of the trail above A in Figure
> 
> Mystery ship detected in SAR image
> Ship Wakes SAR Imagery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you are planning on being on the next Olympic team.  You have leaped from RPG-7s to howitzers to satellites with synthetic aperture radars.
> 
> I will remind you of you comment about the Mk 1 eyeball.  Stick to the argument.
> 
> I am sure Somali pirates have that kind of equipment at their disposal.  What a fucking nimrod!
> 
> You simply are a Google-minded idiot, impressed with your ability to provide an answer, no matter how stupid, to any rebuttal you are given.
> 
> You really are one fucked-up individual.  I have one major suggestion for you!
> 
> Grow up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up a long time ago silly girl.  I also have a lot more reading under my belt than you.  You're like the admirals who wanted to fight the battleship war when the aircraft carrier war was steaming right at them.  In other words, you're obsolete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't explain why you cannot follow a conversation, why you cannot back up a single assertion you have made, why you cannot answer simple questions, and you wonder why I think you need to grow up?
> 
> You may be older than dirt and dumber than dirt as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I follow conversations quite well.  How about you engage in one.  The subject is what a worthless piece of shit the LCS is.  Provably so.  Instead of hurling insults and trying to fight a war from 100 years ago, how about you address the subject matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, as you would see if you read the comments and reactions from the other message board posters on this thread.  You are embarrassing yourself quite well.
Click to expand...







The only people being embarrassed are silly people, like you, who ignore the lessons of past wars.  I suggest you get a copy of Murphy's Laws of Combat.  It was written by people who know, to educate people who don't know.  Like you.  Pay particular attention to number 10.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for Mk-1 Eyeball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up "littoral" and get back to us....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It means near shore.  That doesn't mean steaming through, 50 yards off shore, in broad daylight, under an artillery barrage, dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it means close enough so that a basic artillery piece can knock you on your obviously corpulent ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corpulent?  Man, those eyes of yours are superhuman!  You can see me?  Tell us what I am doing right now!  My middle finger is extended and I am mouthing two words.  Can you tell what they are?
> 
> Also, if the air wing has done their job, there will not be any artillery!  If not, why can't the LCS use their gun?
> 
> You have got to be the biggest poser on this message board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "IF", if, if.  Care to tell me when the military is able to do everything they are supposed to 100% of the time?  Like I said, you deal in fantasy.
Click to expand...


Really?  How many times did you put your ass on the line for this nation?

I have been there and done that, while you played keyboard commando and Googled all day.  That is your expertise.

You haven't posted anything that I have not shot down in flames in my replies.  Give up, slink off, and go Google something about playing  with fire.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you are planning on being on the next Olympic team.  You have leaped from RPG-7s to howitzers to satellites with synthetic aperture radars.
> 
> I will remind you of you comment about the Mk 1 eyeball.  Stick to the argument.
> 
> I am sure Somali pirates have that kind of equipment at their disposal.  What a fucking nimrod!
> 
> You simply are a Google-minded idiot, impressed with your ability to provide an answer, no matter how stupid, to any rebuttal you are given.
> 
> You really are one fucked-up individual.  I have one major suggestion for you!
> 
> Grow up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up a long time ago silly girl.  I also have a lot more reading under my belt than you.  You're like the admirals who wanted to fight the battleship war when the aircraft carrier war was steaming right at them.  In other words, you're obsolete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't explain why you cannot follow a conversation, why you cannot back up a single assertion you have made, why you cannot answer simple questions, and you wonder why I think you need to grow up?
> 
> You may be older than dirt and dumber than dirt as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I follow conversations quite well.  How about you engage in one.  The subject is what a worthless piece of shit the LCS is.  Provably so.  Instead of hurling insults and trying to fight a war from 100 years ago, how about you address the subject matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, as you would see if you read the comments and reactions from the other message board posters on this thread.  You are embarrassing yourself quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only people being embarrassed are silly people, like you, who ignore the lessons of past wars.  I suggest you get a copy of Murphy's Laws of Combat.  It was written by people who know, to educate people who don't know.  Like you.  Pay particular attention to number 10.
Click to expand...


That's enough, you arrogant prick! You are an insufferable keyboard commando because your posts are tissue thin.

I am through playing with your stupidity.  I accomplished my mission of exposing you time and time again.  I recommend all other members to give you the ignore status you richly deserve.  Unfortunately, we cannot use the ignore button.

I really would like to know who was stupid enough to make you a mod.

Enjoy!


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look up "littoral" and get back to us....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means near shore.  That doesn't mean steaming through, 50 yards off shore, in broad daylight, under an artillery barrage, dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it means close enough so that a basic artillery piece can knock you on your obviously corpulent ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corpulent?  Man, those eyes of yours are superhuman!  You can see me?  Tell us what I am doing right now!  My middle finger is extended and I am mouthing two words.  Can you tell what they are?
> 
> Also, if the air wing has done their job, there will not be any artillery!  If not, why can't the LCS use their gun?
> 
> You have got to be the biggest poser on this message board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "IF", if, if.  Care to tell me when the military is able to do everything they are supposed to 100% of the time?  Like I said, you deal in fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  How many times did you put your ass on the line for this nation?
> 
> I have been there and done that, while you played keyboard commando and Googled all day.  That is your expertise.
> 
> You haven't posted anything that I have not shot down in flames in my replies.  Give up, slink off, and go Google something about playing  with fire.
Click to expand...







Sure you have.  Nothing you say can be verified just like nothing I say can be either.  You couldn't shoot your own ass down in flames so don't try and win the internets, it just makes you look like a twerp.  Like I said, address the OP or go away.


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up a long time ago silly girl.  I also have a lot more reading under my belt than you.  You're like the admirals who wanted to fight the battleship war when the aircraft carrier war was steaming right at them.  In other words, you're obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't explain why you cannot follow a conversation, why you cannot back up a single assertion you have made, why you cannot answer simple questions, and you wonder why I think you need to grow up?
> 
> You may be older than dirt and dumber than dirt as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I follow conversations quite well.  How about you engage in one.  The subject is what a worthless piece of shit the LCS is.  Provably so.  Instead of hurling insults and trying to fight a war from 100 years ago, how about you address the subject matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, as you would see if you read the comments and reactions from the other message board posters on this thread.  You are embarrassing yourself quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only people being embarrassed are silly people, like you, who ignore the lessons of past wars.  I suggest you get a copy of Murphy's Laws of Combat.  It was written by people who know, to educate people who don't know.  Like you.  Pay particular attention to number 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's enough, you arrogant prick! You are an insufferable keyboard commando because your posts are tissue thin.
> 
> I am through playing with your stupidity.  I accomplished my mission of exposing you time and time again.  I recommend all other members to give you the ignore status you richly deserve.
> 
> Enjoy!
Click to expand...







Once again you have exposed nothing more than your ignorance.  Internet commando's, like you, are long on insults, patting themselves on the back and bluster.  All of which you have in spades.  So, once again, address the OP or piss off.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means near shore.  That doesn't mean steaming through, 50 yards off shore, in broad daylight, under an artillery barrage, dumbass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it means close enough so that a basic artillery piece can knock you on your obviously corpulent ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corpulent?  Man, those eyes of yours are superhuman!  You can see me?  Tell us what I am doing right now!  My middle finger is extended and I am mouthing two words.  Can you tell what they are?
> 
> Also, if the air wing has done their job, there will not be any artillery!  If not, why can't the LCS use their gun?
> 
> You have got to be the biggest poser on this message board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "IF", if, if.  Care to tell me when the military is able to do everything they are supposed to 100% of the time?  Like I said, you deal in fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  How many times did you put your ass on the line for this nation?
> 
> I have been there and done that, while you played keyboard commando and Googled all day.  That is your expertise.
> 
> You haven't posted anything that I have not shot down in flames in my replies.  Give up, slink off, and go Google something about playing  with fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you have.  Nothing you say can be verified just like nothing I say can be either.  You couldn't shoot your own ass down in flames so don't try and win the internets, it just makes you look like a twerp.  Like I said, address the OP or go away.
Click to expand...


Stop addressing me or I will report you for harassment.  Maybe another mod will take action.


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it means close enough so that a basic artillery piece can knock you on your obviously corpulent ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corpulent?  Man, those eyes of yours are superhuman!  You can see me?  Tell us what I am doing right now!  My middle finger is extended and I am mouthing two words.  Can you tell what they are?
> 
> Also, if the air wing has done their job, there will not be any artillery!  If not, why can't the LCS use their gun?
> 
> You have got to be the biggest poser on this message board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "IF", if, if.  Care to tell me when the military is able to do everything they are supposed to 100% of the time?  Like I said, you deal in fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  How many times did you put your ass on the line for this nation?
> 
> I have been there and done that, while you played keyboard commando and Googled all day.  That is your expertise.
> 
> You haven't posted anything that I have not shot down in flames in my replies.  Give up, slink off, and go Google something about playing  with fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you have.  Nothing you say can be verified just like nothing I say can be either.  You couldn't shoot your own ass down in flames so don't try and win the internets, it just makes you look like a twerp.  Like I said, address the OP or go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop addressing me or I will report you for harassment.  Maybe another mod will take action.
Click to expand...








You don't issue the orders around here junior.  If you have a point about the LCS, make it.  If all you have is internet tough guy bullshit, feel free to go away.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Look up "littoral" and get back to us....


Getting back to you... near the coast.

I've not seen a definition that says within visual range as you claim.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look up "littoral" and get back to us....
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to you... near the coast.
> 
> I've not seen a definition that says within visual range as you claim.
Click to expand...







Then you didn't bother to look.

"10 foot draft to enable the LCS to patrol and fight in the *shallow coastal waters *that have been crucial in recent wars but that the Navy hasn’t been able to access."


Add to that the 30mm/57mm main gun package for the coastal mission and the LCS is outranged by most adversaries they would be facing, and the payload of each projectile is tiny compared to what would be incoming.

"A 2012 DOT&E report provided additional insight. “LCS is not expected to be survivable in that it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment.” The Navy, due to the program’s concurrency-driven lack of survivability testing, has “knowledge gaps related to the vulnerability of an aluminum ship structure to weapon-induced blast and fired damage,” DOT&E wrote, referencing aluminum’s tendency to sag and melt in ordinary ship fires and to burn with nearly inextinguishable intensity when hit by shaped charge cannon shells or missile warheads.

In addition to pointing out the LCS’s lack of combat survivability, the Pentagon’s testing office also found that Freedom’s surface warfare module was defective because the ship’s 30 millimeter gun “exhibit reliability problems,” and that on both classes “ship operations at high speeds cause vibrations that make accurate use of the 57 mm gun very difficult.” Worse yet, the integrated weapons control and air/surface radar system on the Freedom has “performance deficiencies” that degrade the “tracking and engagement of contacts.”


And the Navy admitted way back in 2011 that the ship wasn't survivable in a combat situation.  

"In December 2011, the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) reported concerns about combat survivability. “LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment” Dr. Gilmore wrote. “[LCS design requirements] do not require the inclusion of the survivability features necessary to conduct sustained operations in its expected environment.”

Overhaul of Littoral Combat Ship Program Likely to Increase Risks and Costs




Twenty two Royal Marines showed what happens when an unarmored ship operates close to shore....

Revealed: Untold story of how 22 Marines held off hundreds of Argentinians and disabled a warship on eve of Falklands War

Read more: Revealed: Untold story of how 22 Marines held off hundreds of Argentinians and disabled a warship on eve of Falklands War | Daily Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Revealed: Untold story of how 22 Marines held off hundreds of Argentinians and disabled a warship on eve of Falklands War | Daily Mail Online


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> No, it wouldn't.  The standard high capacity bomb will blow away the teak decking and leave a scorch mark.


Nonsense, deck armor is it's weakest point. Bombs did extensive damage to both Yamato and Musashi, your claim that New Jersey class is somehow impervious to them is ridiculous.



westwall said:


> An Exocet missile, impacting at the perfect angle, and with the maximum retained propellant impacting at VMAX will penetrate 3.5 inches of armor.  Belt armor on a Iowa Class is 12.5 inches.  Turret face and conning tower armor is 17 inches.


Who cares about Exocets and their 360lb warhead? You said modern weapons cannot harm New Jersey so we're including weapons hitting the deck with much more powerful warheads and gravity bombs penetrating almost straight down. If a bomb blew a hole in the 8-9" deck armor of Yamato in 1945 then clearly bombs can penetrate more than 3.5 inches of armor.

The German's Frtiz-X had a 750lb warhead and went right through the 6.4" deck armor of Roma, sending her to the bottom of the sea, yet a 2,000lb penetrator bomb would only leave a scorch mark on New Jersey's deck? Wrong.



westwall said:


> The only thing that would suffer from a missile impact are the various antennas, the missile launch boxes and the secondary 5"/38 mounts.  All other areas of the ship are immune to missile strike.  Deck armor is 7.5 inches with a secondary splinter deck of 2.5 inches so even if it was hit by the biggest Soviet era anti ship missile the damage would be negligible.


Nope. Brahmos hits with a 660lb warhead and hits at over 2,000 mph with kinetic energy of a huge missile, it takes a complete suspension of reality to believe that cannot harm a battleship. 

There are missiles with 1,000 lb warheads that could damage many areas with a terminal dive, there are glide bombs with multistage BROACH warheads, there are bombs with submunitions that would take out anything soft effectively mission killing your ship by making it blind and unable to target anything. Missiles have unspent fuel that causes fires that weaken steel, and they cause secondary explosions and fire from damage to those secondary mounts and missile boxes you mentioned.

Single modern fighter can deliver four 2,000lb laser guided bombs, and it can do it very accurately. It would take dozens of WW2 fighters to achieve the same lethality.  The aircraft would be putting those weapons from almost vertical impact onto the stacks, the masts, etc. and you certainly don't have to penetrate the main armor belt to harm a ship.

No more sensors? Fires? Turrets blown up with possible magazine ignition causing secondary explosions? Sunk or not that battleship is out of the fight and will be charting a direct course to the nearest friendly port for repairs. Mission kill = harmed.

It is crazy to think nothing can harm a battleship, absolutely fucking crazy.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> "10 foot draft to enable the LCS to patrol and fight in the *shallow coastal waters *that have been crucial in recent wars but that the Navy hasn’t been able to access."


"Shallow" is an open ended term that doesn't necessarily mean visual range. The ocean can be miles deep.



westwall said:


> Add to that the 30mm/57mm main gun package for the coastal mission and the LCS is outranged by most adversaries they would be facing, and the payload of each projectile is tiny compared to what would be incoming.


I don't think they were planning on using those guns to get into artillery duels with shore based assets.

Again, it was supposed to be designed for: "anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, anti-surface warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, homeland defense, maritime intercept, special operations, and logistics" that is a whole lot of stuff that doesn't necessarily all consist of sitting off the coast trading pot shots with heavy artillery.



westwall said:


> "A 2012 DOT&E report provided additional insight. “LCS is not expected to be survivable in that it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment.” The Navy, due to the program’s concurrency-driven lack of survivability testing, has “knowledge gaps related to the vulnerability of an aluminum ship structure to weapon-induced blast and fired damage,” DOT&E wrote, referencing aluminum’s tendency to sag and melt in ordinary ship fires and to burn with nearly inextinguishable intensity when hit by shaped charge cannon shells or missile warheads.


Yep, LCS obviously lacks punch, which has nothing to do with your claim it was designed to sit there in visual range.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "10 foot draft to enable the LCS to patrol and fight in the *shallow coastal waters *that have been crucial in recent wars but that the Navy hasn’t been able to access."
> 
> 
> 
> "Shallow" is an open ended term that doesn't necessarily mean visual range. The ocean can be miles deep.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Add to that the 30mm/57mm main gun package for the coastal mission and the LCS is outranged by most adversaries they would be facing, and the payload of each projectile is tiny compared to what would be incoming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think they were planning on using those guns to get into artillery duels with shore based assets.
> 
> Again, it was supposed to be designed for: "anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, anti-surface warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, homeland defense, maritime intercept, special operations, and logistics" that is a whole lot of stuff that doesn't necessarily all consist of sitting off the coast trading pot shots with heavy artillery.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A 2012 DOT&E report provided additional insight. “LCS is not expected to be survivable in that it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment.” The Navy, due to the program’s concurrency-driven lack of survivability testing, has “knowledge gaps related to the vulnerability of an aluminum ship structure to weapon-induced blast and fired damage,” DOT&E wrote, referencing aluminum’s tendency to sag and melt in ordinary ship fires and to burn with nearly inextinguishable intensity when hit by shaped charge cannon shells or missile warheads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, LCS obviously lacks punch, which has nothing to do with your claim it was designed to sit there in visual range.
Click to expand...







A ten foot draft is pretty specific.


Then what are the guns for?


It was supposed to be a do everything ship, and that has failed.  Thus, they are now changing them to dedicated purposes and have allowed the draft to be deepened to 14 feet for stability purposes.  In other words the concept was a failure from the get go.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> A ten foot draft is pretty specific.


Ah so you've jumped from your previous claim of "within visual range" to a new specification that the ship will only operate in waters that are exactly the depth of the ship's draft. Beautiful.



westwall said:


> Then what are the guns for?


The 57mm is multipurpose weapon that can (in theory) be used versus sea skimming antiship missiles, aircraft, other ships, and land targets. The ability to engage land targets does not mean the purpose of the ship is to park offshore and engage in artillery duels with larger weapons. They have the same gun on National Security Cutter, do you believe that ship is also designed to engage in gun fights with shore based artillery?

The 30mms are for  shipboard self-defense against small, high speed surface targets.




westwall said:


> It was supposed to be a do everything ship, and that has failed.  Thus, they are now changing them to dedicated purposes and have allowed the draft to be deepened to 14 feet for stability purposes.  In other words the concept was a failure from the get go.


Do everything? I could have sworn there were people in this thread who believed it was only meant to have gunfights against shore based howitzers in exactly ten feet of water in broad daylight.

At least we can agree on something, the mission module thing was just plain stupid.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A ten foot draft is pretty specific.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah so you've jumped from your previous claim of "within visual range" to a new specification that the ship will only operate in waters that are exactly the depth of the ship's draft. Beautiful.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what are the guns for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 57mm is multipurpose weapon that can (in theory) be used versus sea skimming antiship missiles, aircraft, other ships, and land targets. The ability to engage land targets does not mean the purpose of the ship is to park offshore and engage in artillery duels with larger weapons. They have the same gun on National Security Cutter, do you believe that ship is also designed to engage in gun fights with shore based artillery?
> 
> The 30mms are for  shipboard self-defense against small, high speed surface targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was supposed to be a do everything ship, and that has failed.  Thus, they are now changing them to dedicated purposes and have allowed the draft to be deepened to 14 feet for stability purposes.  In other words the concept was a failure from the get go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do everything? I could have sworn there were people in this thread who believed it was only meant to have gunfights against shore based howitzers in exactly ten feet of water in broad daylight.
> 
> At least we can agree on something, the mission module thing was just plain stupid.
Click to expand...








COASTAL OPERATIONS is also pretty specific.  You can try and parse your words all you want but I am going by the original mission parameters of the USN.  If you have an argument take it up with them.  There is no need for a ten foot draft unless you are operating close in.  That was a design specification.  Deeper drafts allow for more stability and more capability (in general) in a ship design.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> COASTAL OPERATIONS is also pretty specific.  You can try and parse your words all you want but I am going by the original mission parameters of the USN.


Yes, as you pointed out the ship was to able to function in coastal waters (still an open-ended term) including waters more shallow than other ships. Part of it's role was to be able to patrol in shallow waters and do things like insert special operations troops and other amphibious operations. However we still haven't arrived at your original claim that it only operates within visual range so it's low radar cross section is useless, which is what this whole disagreement came from.

LCS was also designed to replace OHP frigates in the non carrier group anti-submarine role, and function as USN's primary minesweeper. For you to believe it is only meant to function within visual range of the coast you'd also have to believe USN only clears mines and protects assets from submarines right along the coast, which is clearly nonsensical.



westwall said:


> If you have an argument take it up with them.  There is no need for a ten foot draft unless you are operating close in.  That was a design specification.  Deeper drafts allow for more stability and more capability (in general) in a ship design.


I don't need to take it up with them, you are the one who can't grasp that LCS doesn't have a single role of sitting in puddle deep water engaging in artillery duels with shore based assets. Nobody has discounted that LCS was designed to operate in shallow water, you're conflating having that capability with how the ship will be used near shore and discounting the many other roles it was intended for.

You want to criticize it for being an overpriced poorly managed bad idea fine I'm right there with you, but in it's original role (and whatever it ends up doing) being harder to detect/track/target with a radar is a good thing.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> COASTAL OPERATIONS is also pretty specific.  You can try and parse your words all you want but I am going by the original mission parameters of the USN.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as you pointed out the ship was to able to function in coastal waters (still an open-ended term) including waters more shallow than other ships. Part of it's role was to be able to patrol in shallow waters and do things like insert special operations troops and other amphibious operations. However we still haven't arrived at your original claim that it only operates within visual range so it's low radar cross section is useless, which is what this whole disagreement came from.
> 
> LCS was also designed to replace OHP frigates in the non carrier group anti-submarine role, and function as USN's primary minesweeper. For you to believe it is only meant to function within visual range of the coast you'd also have to believe USN only clears mines and protects assets from submarines right along the coast, which is clearly nonsensical.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have an argument take it up with them.  There is no need for a ten foot draft unless you are operating close in.  That was a design specification.  Deeper drafts allow for more stability and more capability (in general) in a ship design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to take it up with them, you are the one who can't grasp that LCS doesn't have a single role of sitting in puddle deep water engaging in artillery duels with shore based assets. Nobody has discounted that LCS was designed to operate in shallow water, you're conflating having that capability with how the ship will be used near shore and discounting the many other roles it was intended for.
> 
> You want to criticize it for being an overpriced poorly managed bad idea fine I'm right there with you, but in it's original role (and whatever it ends up doing) being harder to detect/track/target with a radar is a good thing.
Click to expand...










Resorting to lying yet again?  Please link to where i said it only operated in visual range of the coastline.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> If a ship approaches *within visual range of the coast*, which is the *stated purpose of the LCS*


You're welcome.


----------



## eagle1462010

The Ships are Crap.  End of story


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a ship approaches *within visual range of the coast*, which is the *stated purpose of the LCS*
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.
Click to expand...







Where does it say "ONLY"  You're welcome.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Where does it say "ONLY"  You're welcome.


Oh okay gotcha, in other words your whole "stealth is useless" thing was pointless since you're now abandoning the base of your entire argument. 

Apparently you've come around and understand the ship was meant to do more than sit in 10 feet of water and engage in artillery duels with land forces. Congrats.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say "ONLY"  You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh okay gotcha, in other words your whole "stealth is useless" thing was pointless since you're now abandoning the base of your entire argument.
> 
> Apparently you've come around and understand the ship was meant to do more than sit in 10 feet of water and engage in artillery duels with land forces. Congrats.
Click to expand...







Are you really that simple minded?  The NAVY specified a ten foot draft for COASTAL OPERATIONS.  The NAVY also wanted it to be able to do a whole bunch of other jobs.  It has failed at ALL jobs given to it.  In fact, it can barely move under its own power as evidenced by the numerous failures.  The fact that they designed it using dissimilar metals, a practice fraught with peril, and KNOWN to be a problem since the time of Nelson, shows what a terrible design the damned thing is.  

They designed it with stealth tech.  Why?  It sure is expensive, but other than looking cool, what benefit does it impart to the ship?  Can't spot it on radar?  OK.  How about that sonar signature that can be heard from 50 miles away.  Or how about those pesky satellites tracking it from space via its wake.  

But it's NAME "littoral combat ship", and it's design TEN FOOT DRAFT, and its stated mission "OPERATIONS IN COASTAL WATERS " tell us that the intent is for it to operate in shallow coastal waters and in that environment stealth is useless.  But armor (which it lacks) isn't.

Now run along junior.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Cant believe Saudis want some of these......wonder if they are going to come in the standard useless config or if Saudis have modification plans.......


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Are you really that simple minded?


We should report this to a moderator.



westwall said:


> The NAVY specified a ten foot draft for COASTAL OPERATIONS.The NAVY also wanted it to be able to do a whole bunch of other jobs.


Congrats, you've finally wrapped your head around this. When you say stealthiness is pointless because it operates within visual range, you were only considering a single aspect of a single mission. Coastal operations don't have to be within visual range, and minesweeping/antisub/maritime/etc. definitely don't. So your tired comment about the Mk1 eyeball was quite misplaced.



westwall said:


> They designed it with stealth tech.  Why?  It sure is expensive, but other than looking cool, what benefit does it impart to the ship?  Can't spot it on radar?  OK.  How about that sonar signature that can be heard from 50 miles away.  Or how about those pesky satellites tracking it from space via its wake.


First we'd like to congratulate you for finally getting past the "visual range" thing you were hung up on. They designed it with stealth tech because a ship that is harder to find/track/target on radar, be it another ship or a coastal battery or a antiship missile, is at an advantage. Everyone potential adversary doesn't have access to real time satellite data (I think you watch too much TV), nor would it help their missiles that are guided by active radar lock onto the ship instead of countermeasures.

Simply put = low RCS is an advantage, which is much more than looking cool.



westwall said:


> But it's NAME "littoral combat ship", and it's design TEN FOOT DRAFT, and its stated mission "OPERATIONS IN COASTAL WATERS " tell us that the intent is for it to operate in shallow coastal waters and in that environment stealth is useless.  But armor (which it lacks) isn't.


Dang, thought for a second you were finally gaining clarity but I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up. I guess it's good you've backtracked from previous bullshit about its stated mission being to operate within visual range, so let's be patient and keep working with you here.

Knowing that it was designed to have a minesweeper mission module, do you think it was only supposed to clear mines in ten feet of water? What good would that do, clear the way for other LCS?

Knowing that it was designed to have a antisub mission module, do you thin it was only supposed to hunt midget subs in ten feet of water?

Knowing that it's original mission statement included maritime intercept and homeland defense, do you think it was supposed to hang out in ten feet of water waiting for potential targets to approach?

Of course not. That is why you make no sense here.





westwall said:


> Now run along junior.


Seriously? You're proud to be this type of old guy? lol.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Cant believe Saudis want some of these......wonder if they are going to come in the standard useless config or if Saudis have modification plans.......


I don't get it either, especially with so many other designs on the market. Maybe they dig the speed aspect or something, no idea.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that simple minded?
> 
> 
> 
> We should report this to a moderator.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NAVY specified a ten foot draft for COASTAL OPERATIONS.The NAVY also wanted it to be able to do a whole bunch of other jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congrats, you've finally wrapped your head around this. When you say stealthiness is pointless because it operates within visual range, you were only considering a single aspect of a single mission. Coastal operations don't have to be within visual range, and minesweeping/antisub/maritime/etc. definitely don't. So your tired comment about the Mk1 eyeball was quite misplaced.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They designed it with stealth tech.  Why?  It sure is expensive, but other than looking cool, what benefit does it impart to the ship?  Can't spot it on radar?  OK.  How about that sonar signature that can be heard from 50 miles away.  Or how about those pesky satellites tracking it from space via its wake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First we'd like to congratulate you for finally getting past the "visual range" thing you were hung up on. They designed it with stealth tech because a ship that is harder to find/track/target on radar, be it another ship or a coastal battery or a antiship missile, is at an advantage. Everyone potential adversary doesn't have access to real time satellite data (I think you watch too much TV), nor would it help their missiles that are guided by active radar lock onto the ship instead of countermeasures.
> 
> Simply put = low RCS is an advantage, which is much more than looking cool.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's NAME "littoral combat ship", and it's design TEN FOOT DRAFT, and its stated mission "OPERATIONS IN COASTAL WATERS " tell us that the intent is for it to operate in shallow coastal waters and in that environment stealth is useless.  But armor (which it lacks) isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dang, thought for a second you were finally gaining clarity but I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up. I guess it's good you've backtracked from previous bullshit about its stated mission being to operate within visual range, so let's be patient and keep working with you here.
> 
> Knowing that it was designed to have a minesweeper mission module, do you think it was only supposed to clear mines in ten feet of water? What good would that do, clear the way for other LCS?
> 
> Knowing that it was designed to have a antisub mission module, do you thin it was only supposed to hunt midget subs in ten feet of water?
> 
> Knowing that it's original mission statement included maritime intercept and homeland defense, do you think it was supposed to hang out in ten feet of water waiting for potential targets to approach?
> 
> Of course not. That is why you make no sense here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now run along junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously? You're proud to be this type of old guy? lol.
Click to expand...









Ahhhh, poor drain.  The name of the ship is the intended primary mission.  All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them) were window dressing to make the ship sound cooler so that Congress would give them the money to buy them.  Congress likes multi mission platforms because they think they are getting more bang for their buck.  In other words it was propaganda.

The Navy's JOB is to project power.  Anywhere.  Homeland defense is the job of the Coast Guard for the most part or didn't you ever read their mission statement....or is it that you have never heard of the COAST GUARD.  And perhaps you don't understand the mission of the *COAST GUARD*?  Or maybe you chose to ignore the *COAST GUARD* because it didn't fit in with your tired narrative?


----------



## eagle1462010

Cheaper to build, less men to man it, fast as hell............and used for coastal duty..............

Better to go back to old less expensive designs than this piece of junk.  Or use the money to put in underwater acuistic detection systems.


----------



## westwall

eagle1462010 said:


> Cheaper to build, less men to man it, fast as hell............and used for coastal duty..............
> 
> Better to go back to old less expensive designs than this piece of junk.  Or use the money to put in underwater acuistic detection systems.







IIRC these were maintenance nightmares, however, with the newer modern technology available I believe that this design could indeed be the solution to the issues at hand.  Pound for pound these were the most heavily armed vessels in US Navy history absent nukes.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Ahhhh, poor drain.  The name of the ship is the intended primary mission.  All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them) were window dressing to make the ship sound cooler so that Congress would give them the money to buy them.  Congress likes multi mission platforms because they think they are getting more bang for their buck.  In other words it was propaganda.


Today's award for making shit up and spouting it as fact goes to Westwall. When you're losing an argument so badly it has become a spectacle... just start calling inconvenient facts "propaganda" and be done with it. Applause. Bonus hilarity is how often you've flailed about inventing mission statements for LCS, and are now forced to discount as propaganda most of the roles in the real one.

And to top it off amidst all your blather you've got your facts wrong as usual, they haven't abandoned the antisubmarine or minesweeping missions for LCS. There will be LCS ships that specialize in ASW, ASUW or MCM instead of switchable mission modules.

On LCS mine hunting, from April 2017: Navy League 2017: USN to employ two more CUSVs for mine-hunting on LCS | Jane's 360
On LCS mine hunting, from May 2017: LCS Mine Countermeasures Package May Be Headed For Single IOT&E For All 4 Increments - USNI News
On LCS sub escort, from Jan 2017: Major LCS Mission Package Decision Nears
On LCS sub escort, from Nov 2016 - Navy pursues lightweight sonar and sensor systems to boost Littoral Combat Ship ASW capabilities

_*Beginning in Fall 2016*, the Navy would start to phase out the 3:2:1 crewing construct and transition to a Blue/Gold model similar to the one used in crewing Ballistic Missile submarines, patrol craft and minesweepers. The LCS crews would also merge, train and rotate with mission module detachment crews, organizing as four-ship divisions of a single warfare area -- either surface warfare (SUW), *mine warfare (MCM) or anti-submarine warfare (ASW)*. The first four LCS ships (LCS 1-4) will become testing ships. Like the training ships, testing ships will be single-crewed and could be deployed as fleet assets if needed on a limited basis_


Clearly USN is still awarding contracts and doing testing for LCS in the sub escort and mine sweeping roles, and they have not (as you claim) abandoned the roles. Liar much? So what we have here is WestWall thinking the US Navy plans to hunt mines and submarines in 10 feet of water. Never go full retard folks, it's dangerous.




westwall said:


> The Navy's JOB is to project power.  Anywhere.  Homeland defense is the job of the Coast Guard for the most part or didn't you ever read their mission statement....or is it that you have never heard of the COAST GUARD.  And perhaps you don't understand the mission of the *COAST GUARD*?  Or maybe you chose to ignore the *COAST GUARD* because it didn't fit in with your tired narrative?


Yawn. For someone who is big on making claims about the LCS mission statement you sure do spend much effort trying to ignore part of it.

Smarter Security - Page 2
Officials of both services agree that the Navy's role should be to support the Coast Guard, particularly in areas, such as air defense, where the Coast Guard has little or no capability. Navy officials believe that the Navy, while contributing to maritime homeland security operations, should remain primarily focused on deploying naval forces overseas to provide a forward defense against threats to the United States. 21 Why has the Navy decided it now must employ LCS in homeland security? Will the Navy use LCS to augment the Coast Guard for homeland security missions or conduct separate, stand alone missions? The defense department has offered few specifics about envisioned homeland security duties and the number of littoral combat ships needed. 22 One analyst believes that LCS will be used to guard offshore infrastructure, such as oil platforms or underwater fiber-optic cables. 23 Since the mainstays of homeland security duties are mundane and low-technology, using the littoral ships means their expensive warfare mission modules will find little everyday use. Before the Coast Guard could proceed with incorporating improved homeland security and defense capabilities for its two new maritime security ships, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducted two exhaustive reviews. It would seem reasonable that the DHS decision process would be useful in evaluating the LCS's role in homeland security. Further, if the Navy wants to use the LCS in homeland security, its numbers will be affected by the Coast Guard's contribution of at least 33 major ships. Conversely, the analysis that led to the determination that the Navy needs to employ LCS in homeland security may be used by the Coast Guard to see if it needs additional maritime security ships.


----------



## DrainBamage

eagle1462010 said:


>


This is a fitting reference given Westwall's beautiful speech about how homeland security is the job of the *COAST GUARD* and how that must discount any possibility of a USN ship having a role in it.

_"the U.S. Navy proceeded to procure six PHMs, which were highly successful in conducting coastal operations, such as *narcotics interdiction* and coastal patrol, in the Caribbean basin"_

Sheesh imagine that, Navy assets doing homeland security role. Impossible!


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, poor drain.  The name of the ship is the intended primary mission.  All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them) were window dressing to make the ship sound cooler so that Congress would give them the money to buy them.  Congress likes multi mission platforms because they think they are getting more bang for their buck.  In other words it was propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Today's award for making shit up and spouting it as fact goes to Westwall. When you're losing an argument so badly it has become a spectacle... just start calling inconvenient facts "propaganda" and be done with it. Applause. Bonus hilarity is how often you've flailed about inventing mission statements for LCS, and are now forced to discount as propaganda most of the roles in the real one.
> 
> And to top it off amidst all your blather you've got your facts wrong as usual, they haven't abandoned the antisubmarine or minesweeping missions for LCS. There will be LCS ships that specialize in ASW, ASUW or MCM instead of switchable mission modules.
> 
> On LCS mine hunting, from April 2017: Navy League 2017: USN to employ two more CUSVs for mine-hunting on LCS | Jane's 360
> On LCS mine hunting, from May 2017: LCS Mine Countermeasures Package May Be Headed For Single IOT&E For All 4 Increments - USNI News
> On LCS sub escort, from Jan 2017: Major LCS Mission Package Decision Nears
> On LCS sub escort, from Nov 2016 - Navy pursues lightweight sonar and sensor systems to boost Littoral Combat Ship ASW capabilities
> 
> _*Beginning in Fall 2016*, the Navy would start to phase out the 3:2:1 crewing construct and transition to a Blue/Gold model similar to the one used in crewing Ballistic Missile submarines, patrol craft and minesweepers. The LCS crews would also merge, train and rotate with mission module detachment crews, organizing as four-ship divisions of a single warfare area -- either surface warfare (SUW), *mine warfare (MCM) or anti-submarine warfare (ASW)*. The first four LCS ships (LCS 1-4) will become testing ships. Like the training ships, testing ships will be single-crewed and could be deployed as fleet assets if needed on a limited basis_
> 
> 
> Clearly USN is still awarding contracts and doing testing for LCS in the sub escort and mine sweeping roles, and they have not (as you claim) abandoned the roles. Liar much? So what we have here is WestWall thinking the US Navy plans to hunt mines and submarines in 10 feet of water. Never go full retard folks, it's dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Navy's JOB is to project power.  Anywhere.  Homeland defense is the job of the Coast Guard for the most part or didn't you ever read their mission statement....or is it that you have never heard of the COAST GUARD.  And perhaps you don't understand the mission of the *COAST GUARD*?  Or maybe you chose to ignore the *COAST GUARD* because it didn't fit in with your tired narrative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn. For someone who is big on making claims about the LCS mission statement you sure do spend much effort trying to ignore part of it.
> 
> Smarter Security - Page 2
> Officials of both services agree that the Navy's role should be to support the Coast Guard, particularly in areas, such as air defense, where the Coast Guard has little or no capability. Navy officials believe that the Navy, while contributing to maritime homeland security operations, should remain primarily focused on deploying naval forces overseas to provide a forward defense against threats to the United States. 21 Why has the Navy decided it now must employ LCS in homeland security? Will the Navy use LCS to augment the Coast Guard for homeland security missions or conduct separate, stand alone missions? The defense department has offered few specifics about envisioned homeland security duties and the number of littoral combat ships needed. 22 One analyst believes that LCS will be used to guard offshore infrastructure, such as oil platforms or underwater fiber-optic cables. 23 Since the mainstays of homeland security duties are mundane and low-technology, using the littoral ships means their expensive warfare mission modules will find little everyday use. Before the Coast Guard could proceed with incorporating improved homeland security and defense capabilities for its two new maritime security ships, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducted two exhaustive reviews. It would seem reasonable that the DHS decision process would be useful in evaluating the LCS's role in homeland security. Further, if the Navy wants to use the LCS in homeland security, its numbers will be affected by the Coast Guard's contribution of at least 33 major ships. Conversely, the analysis that led to the determination that the Navy needs to employ LCS in homeland security may be used by the Coast Guard to see if it needs additional maritime security ships.
Click to expand...









Yeah, you're good at dredging up the propaganda.  How about the real questions...


*LCS: Controversies & Cautions*

The cost and size of LCS ships are now comparable to other countries’ high-end naval frigates. As the US Navy’s primary low-end vessels in the future fleet, they will be expected to perform many of the same roles. The cargo hold’s size has created some challenges in fitting all of the required equipment into the mission modules, without compromising high-end performance at the modules’ particular tasks. Even so, LCS ships can be expected to perform the mine countermeasures role very well, and the frigates’ traditional anti-submarine role reasonably well, thanks to their helicopters, array of robots, and rapidly upgradeable systems.


Present LCS designs don’t even carry torpedo tubes, or vertical-launch systems (VLS) that could accommodate present and future attack and/or defensive missiles. Even with the Surface Warfare module installed, LCS ships will carry a very light armament set for a major naval vessel: a 57-mm Mk 110 naval gun system





; RIM-116 SeaRAM short range defensive missiles; 30mm cannons that would replace very short range Griffin missile launchers if installed; 12.7mm machine guns; plus any missiles or 70mm rockets carried by its accompanying helicopters (up to 2 H-60 slots or up to 4 MQ-8B Fire Scout UAV slots).


Meanwhile, survivability has become an issue on 3 fronts. One is the slim margins created by a very small crew, leaving little margin for tasks like damage control if automated systems are damaged or fail. The other issues involve questions of shock/survivability testing, and of aluminum structures. The original concept for LCS was a ship whose damage resistance could save the crew, but not the ship, in the event if a significant strike. That was upgraded slightly to potentially saving the crew and the ship, but not continuing to fight while doing so. As the Exocet missile strikes on the HMS Sheffield (sank) and USS Stark (survived, barely) proved, even steel warships designed to keep fighting after a strike may find it challenging to meet their design specifications. *Navy revelations that the LCS ships would not meet even Level I standards, let alone the OPNAVINST 9070.1 Level II standard of the frigates they’ll replace, has caused some consternation.*


LCS: The USAs Littoral Combat Ships




All that this shows is the system of acquisition was flawed.  They decided to order TWO competing designs to see which they liked better.  That's fine.  But you only order ONE OF EACH.  Not multiples.  Having two designs for the same mission doubles your operational maintenance costs for a single mission.  That's stupid.  The revelations that they violated basic design principles just further boggles the mind.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a fitting reference given Westwall's beautiful speech about how homeland security is the job of the *COAST GUARD* and how that must discount any possibility of a USN ship having a role in it.
> 
> _"the U.S. Navy proceeded to procure six PHMs, which were highly successful in conducting coastal operations, such as *narcotics interdiction* and coastal patrol, in the Caribbean basin"_
> 
> Sheesh imagine that, Navy assets doing homeland security role. Impossible!
Click to expand...






The Pegasus was a experimental design.  The Coast Guard would have ended up with them had the production continued.  You should look at the capabilities of the vessel.  They were actually very far ahead of their time.  The problem was the Navy didn't like them because they were small (kind of like how the Air Force seems to think that every aircraft in the inventory MUST GO SUPERSONIC, regardless if it is beneficial to the mission or not).  The crews loved them.  

But, yet again, you fail to address the very real problems of the LCS and instead resort to simple name calling and propaganda posting.  Much like your alter ego.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Yeah, you're good at dredging up the propaganda.


You do have a funny habit of labeling anything that exposes the bullshit you shovel as "propaganda", typical cop-out of someone backed into a corner and unable to argue against real facts. You claim they have abandoned the sub and minesweep missions of LCS, but that is false and directly contradicted by news from 2017 about US Navy plans for LCS in both missions.

Fact = they have formed MCM and ASW detachments 
Fact = they are actively testing MCM remote operations vehicles for LCS mine role
Fact = they are continuing to develop/test the variable depth sonar and mutifunction towed array for LCS sub role

When you say they have abandoned these roles you are lying, not debating. When caught in these lies and you dismiss clear evidence as "propaganda" you humiliate yourself since anyone can use google and confirm that USN is moving forward with mission packages and technology for LCS to support these roles. 

You are a liar, it is easily proven, and you should feel terrible about it.



westwall said:


> How about the real questions...


Translation: "I was caught in yet another lie, quick look over here!"


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're good at dredging up the propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a funny habit of labeling anything that exposes the bullshit you shovel as "propaganda", typical cop-out of someone backed into a corner and unable to argue against real facts. You claim they have abandoned the sub and minesweep missions of LCS, but that is false and directly contradicted by news from 2017 about US Navy plans for LCS in both missions.
> 
> Fact = they have formed MCM and ASW detachments
> Fact = they are actively testing MCM remote operations vehicles for LCS mine role
> Fact = they are continuing to develop/test the variable depth sonar and mutifunction towed array for LCS sub role
> 
> When you say they have abandoned these roles you are lying, not debating. When caught in these lies and you dismiss clear evidence as "propaganda" you humiliate yourself since anyone can use google and confirm that USN is moving forward with mission packages and technology for LCS to support these roles.
> 
> You are a liar, it is easily proven, and you should feel terrible about it.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the real questions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: "I was caught in yet another lie, quick look over here!"
Click to expand...






Fact:  The MCM and ASW packages could go on almost any vessel.  The MCM currently doesn't even work.  The ASW "package" is almost entirely helicopter born so that is the most effective one because, surprise, the helicopters aren't part of the damned ship!

Fact:  They are desperately trying to come up with a mine detection system......THAT WORKS!  So far, no joy.

Fact:  Of course they are continuing to test the towed array sonar system.  Whenever they can actually get one of the LCS's to sea that's pretty much all they do is test things.  Duh.








LOCKHEED MARTIN'S LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP _MILWAUKEE_ (LCS 5). PROBABLY THE WORLD'S PRETTIEST MINESWEEPER... THAT STILL CAN'T SWEEP MINES. IMAGE SOURCE:


"Unfortunately, a key piece of the minesweeping mission is the development of a new fleet of small, robotic, mine-detecting submarines to scout out the boom-balls and guide their mother ship in to disarm them.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but they can't -- find the mines, that is, or relay the mines' location back to the mother ship. Not with any reliability, at least. In fact, according to an assessment by the Navy's own Directorate of Operational Test and Evaluation, recent tests of Lockheed's fleet of Remote Multi-Mission Vehicles saw the drones break down 14 times over 300 hours of testing, and miss their target of 75 hours' operation between failures by a factor of three."

Can Northrop Grumman Solve the Littoral Combat Ship Problem? --  The Motley Fool


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> But, yet again, you fail to address the very real problems of the LCS and instead resort to simple name calling and propaganda posting.  Much like your alter ego.


I'm not addressing the real problems of the LCS program because that isn't something we disagree on. What I'm interested in now is this statement, since you're using it to back up your claim that stealth aspects of the design are useless:



westwall said:


> "All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them)



This is a flat out lie. Then you compound it by using the lazy catch-all of the compulsive liar, dismissing facts the prove otherwise as propaganda without even bothering to try to address them. Here is an update from the US Navy on the mission modules you claim have been abandoned: http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SAS-Moton-LCSMM.pdf it notes current focus for MCM and ASW on LCS and the milestones they anticipate in 2017-2019.

Here is from Congressional Research Service in *March of 2017*: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf

MCM MPs are being fielded in four phases delivering capability to address maritime mines and to replace legacy Avenger class Mine Countermeasures ships and MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters that are nearing the end of service life. The ASW MPs will be delivered in a single phase and provide counter-submarine capability in littoral and deep water envi

Increment 1 of the MCM MP consists of the Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV), towed sonar, and airborne mine detection and neutralization systems. Technical Evaluation (TECHEVAL) was completed in August 2015, aboard USS Independence (LCS 2). The Mission Package met the majority of its sustained area coverage rate test requirements, but significant reliability issues were noted with the RMMV and associated subsystems, which constitute the Remote Minehunting System (RMS). Based on TECHEVAL results, CNO and ASN (RDA) chartered an Independent Review Team to assess the RMS. The review team recommended halting the procurement of the RMMV Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) 2 and recommended pursuing acceleration of other promising near term technologies to accomplish the MCM mission. The Navy will coordinate with all stakeholders, particularly the Fleet, in developing the way ahead for this important capability. 

The ASW Mission Package, comprised of a continuously active variable depth sonar (VDS), multi-function towed array (MFTA), and a torpedo defense capability, is in development and preparing for Developmental Testing (DT). The ASW Mission Package completed its initial integration test onboard USS FREEDOM (LCS 1) on September 30, 2014. All primary test objectives were completed successfully. ASW MP testing has been successfully conducted using the Advanced Development Model (ADM) Platform. This platform allowed integration testing of the Continuous Active Sonar and VDS that will be associated with the ASW escort module. The ASW MP is on track to complete DT with IOT&E in late FY 2018.

New Crewing and Operating Plan Announced September 2016 In September 2016, the Navy announced a new plan for crewing and operating the first 28 baseline LCSs. Key elements of the new plan include the following:
- the other 24 LCSs (LCSs 5 through 28) will be divided into six divisions (i.e., groups) of four ships each
- among the three divisions on each coast, *one division will focus on MCM, one will focus on ASW*, and one will focus on SUW


All this for propaganda! It's all fake according to our compulsive liar who says LCS program has abandoned MCM and ASW missions.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Fact:  The MCM and ASW packages could go on almost any vessel.  The MCM currently doesn't even work.  The ASW "package" is almost entirely helicopter born so that is the most effective one because, surprise, the helicopters aren't part of the damned ship!
> 
> Fact:  They are desperately trying to come up with a mine detection system......THAT WORKS!  So far, no joy.
> 
> Fact:  Of course they are continuing to test the towed array sonar system.  Whenever they can actually get one of the LCS's to sea that's pretty much all they do is test things.  Duh.


And the backpedaling from the "they have abandoned other missions" begins slowly....


----------



## whitehall

Since every expert acknowledges that the days of the gigantic sea borne armadas are over, little crappy ships seem to be the logical future of the U.S. Navy. Let's hope they get them right.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> "All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them)



According to US Navy:
- the other 24 LCSs (LCSs 5 through 28) will be divided into six divisions (i.e., groups) of four ships each
- among the three divisions on each coast, *one division will focus on MCM, one will focus on ASW*, and one will focus on SUW

Portrait of a compulsive liar.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, yet again, you fail to address the very real problems of the LCS and instead resort to simple name calling and propaganda posting.  Much like your alter ego.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not addressing the real problems of the LCS program because that isn't something we disagree on. What I'm interested in now is this statement, since you're using it to back up your claim that stealth aspects of the design are useless:
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a flat out lie. Then you compound it by using the lazy catch-all of the compulsive liar, dismissing facts the prove otherwise as propaganda without even bothering to try to address them. Here is an update from the US Navy on the mission modules you claim have been abandoned: http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SAS-Moton-LCSMM.pdf it notes current focus for MCM and ASW on LCS and the milestones they anticipate in 2017-2019.
> 
> Here is from Congressional Research Service in *March of 2017*: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf
> 
> MCM MPs are being fielded in four phases delivering capability to address maritime mines and to replace legacy Avenger class Mine Countermeasures ships and MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters that are nearing the end of service life. The ASW MPs will be delivered in a single phase and provide counter-submarine capability in littoral and deep water envi
> 
> Increment 1 of the MCM MP consists of the Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV), towed sonar, and airborne mine detection and neutralization systems. Technical Evaluation (TECHEVAL) was completed in August 2015, aboard USS Independence (LCS 2). The Mission Package met the majority of its sustained area coverage rate test requirements, but significant reliability issues were noted with the RMMV and associated subsystems, which constitute the Remote Minehunting System (RMS). Based on TECHEVAL results, CNO and ASN (RDA) chartered an Independent Review Team to assess the RMS. The review team recommended halting the procurement of the RMMV Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) 2 and recommended pursuing acceleration of other promising near term technologies to accomplish the MCM mission. The Navy will coordinate with all stakeholders, particularly the Fleet, in developing the way ahead for this important capability.
> 
> The ASW Mission Package, comprised of a continuously active variable depth sonar (VDS), multi-function towed array (MFTA), and a torpedo defense capability, is in development and preparing for Developmental Testing (DT). The ASW Mission Package completed its initial integration test onboard USS FREEDOM (LCS 1) on September 30, 2014. All primary test objectives were completed successfully. ASW MP testing has been successfully conducted using the Advanced Development Model (ADM) Platform. This platform allowed integration testing of the Continuous Active Sonar and VDS that will be associated with the ASW escort module. The ASW MP is on track to complete DT with IOT&E in late FY 2018.
> 
> New Crewing and Operating Plan Announced September 2016 In September 2016, the Navy announced a new plan for crewing and operating the first 28 baseline LCSs. Key elements of the new plan include the following:
> - the other 24 LCSs (LCSs 5 through 28) will be divided into six divisions (i.e., groups) of four ships each
> - among the three divisions on each coast, *one division will focus on MCM, one will focus on ASW*, and one will focus on SUW
> 
> 
> All this for propaganda! It's all fake according to our compulsive liar who says LCS program has abandoned MCM and ASW missions.
Click to expand...







No, it counts as propaganda because the Navy is carrying on as if there is no problem.  They are working to address the fact that the MCM currently doesn't work, but work it does not.  That is a fact.  The LCS was supposed to be able to move mission packages and crew from ship to ship as modules.  That is being abandoned as delineated here...BTW jettisons means they aren't doing it any more.  I didn't say they were stopping the MCM systems.  What I did say is the modular system was a failure, so the ships were going to DEDICATED platforms.  Thus you are the liar for misrepresenting what I said.  A typical tactic of a buffoon.

PENTAGON: After a series of embarrassing breakdowns, the Navy is overhauling how it operates its controversial Littoral Combat Ships. It’s not only big news for the Navy but a cautionary tale for would-be innovators.


The first four LCS ships, which were built with R&D funds and which lack bug fixes made to later vessels, will not deploy overseas except in times of crisis. They become dedicated test ships and stay in home waters to try out systems like the evolving anti-submarine and mine-sweeping modules.
The other two dozen vessels already in service or on contract — LCS-5 through LCS-28 — will be deployed, crewed, *and based according to a new scheme that jettisons the ship’s once-highly-touted innovations. Gone are radical concepts such as moving LCS crews and mission modules from ship to ship to ship.*
An additional dozen LCS “frigates” — an upgunned model now in development — will tentatively follow the same system introduced today.
Both deployed LCS variants will follow the same deployment schedule and crew rotation model, but they will be segregated to simplify maintenance and training. The Lockheed Martin _Freedom_-class LCS will deploy out of Mayport, Fla. and all the Austal _Independence_-class LCS out of San Diego, Calif.

Navy Sidelines First 4 LCS; Overhauls Deployment, Crewing


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to US Navy:
> - the other 24 LCSs (LCSs 5 through 28) will be divided into six divisions (i.e., groups) of four ships each
> - among the three divisions on each coast, *one division will focus on MCM, one will focus on ASW*, and one will focus on SUW
> 
> Portrait of a compulsive liar.
Click to expand...






Yes indeed you are.  Thank you for reinforcing what I stated.  Originally ALL ships were supposed to be able to do ALL things.  In other words a modular system.  What I stated was that system had failed and they were transitioning to DEDICATED platforms, as this post shows.  Thanks for proving MY point and proving that you're either a pathological liar, or a moron.  I'll let you choose which one you are.


----------



## eagle1462010

DrainBamage said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a fitting reference given Westwall's beautiful speech about how homeland security is the job of the *COAST GUARD* and how that must discount any possibility of a USN ship having a role in it.
> 
> _"the U.S. Navy proceeded to procure six PHMs, which were highly successful in conducting coastal operations, such as *narcotics interdiction* and coastal patrol, in the Caribbean basin"_
> 
> Sheesh imagine that, Navy assets doing homeland security role. Impossible!
Click to expand...

Imagine that.  Those missions were called Legal Ops.  Ever been on one of those deployments.  My deployment back in the day was on an LHD.......Not exactly a small ship.

The Role of the U.S. Navy......of which I served 10 years in............Is Power Projection...........Keeping the Sea Lanes Open.......a BLUE WATER NAVY..........We used to joke with the Coast Guard about the Height requirement to join the Coast Guard........6 foot.......so they could walk to shore should they sink........or we simply called them Puddle Jumpers..................

Their MISSION is the PROTECTION of our Coast Lines..............Not that the U.S. Navy can't do this...........but it is the DIRECT MISSION of the COAST GUARD............and YES............They should be the ones manning and being expanded to do this operation.......We are all in the armed forces...........and we all have a role to play...........and that role is DESIGNATED TO THE COAST GUARD...............

The PHM's were absolutely bad ass little boats..............and the personnel assigned loved the dang things back in the day...........Again......FAR CHEAPER and capable patrol boats.............The LCM is a piece of trash for what I already mentioned...........continuing because of POLITICS and not their capabilities...........

My position is unchanged.


----------



## eagle1462010

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, poor drain.  The name of the ship is the intended primary mission.  All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them) were window dressing to make the ship sound cooler so that Congress would give them the money to buy them.  Congress likes multi mission platforms because they think they are getting more bang for their buck.  In other words it was propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Today's award for making shit up and spouting it as fact goes to Westwall. When you're losing an argument so badly it has become a spectacle... just start calling inconvenient facts "propaganda" and be done with it. Applause. Bonus hilarity is how often you've flailed about inventing mission statements for LCS, and are now forced to discount as propaganda most of the roles in the real one.
> 
> And to top it off amidst all your blather you've got your facts wrong as usual, they haven't abandoned the antisubmarine or minesweeping missions for LCS. There will be LCS ships that specialize in ASW, ASUW or MCM instead of switchable mission modules.
> 
> On LCS mine hunting, from April 2017: Navy League 2017: USN to employ two more CUSVs for mine-hunting on LCS | Jane's 360
> On LCS mine hunting, from May 2017: LCS Mine Countermeasures Package May Be Headed For Single IOT&E For All 4 Increments - USNI News
> On LCS sub escort, from Jan 2017: Major LCS Mission Package Decision Nears
> On LCS sub escort, from Nov 2016 - Navy pursues lightweight sonar and sensor systems to boost Littoral Combat Ship ASW capabilities
> 
> _*Beginning in Fall 2016*, the Navy would start to phase out the 3:2:1 crewing construct and transition to a Blue/Gold model similar to the one used in crewing Ballistic Missile submarines, patrol craft and minesweepers. The LCS crews would also merge, train and rotate with mission module detachment crews, organizing as four-ship divisions of a single warfare area -- either surface warfare (SUW), *mine warfare (MCM) or anti-submarine warfare (ASW)*. The first four LCS ships (LCS 1-4) will become testing ships. Like the training ships, testing ships will be single-crewed and could be deployed as fleet assets if needed on a limited basis_
> 
> 
> Clearly USN is still awarding contracts and doing testing for LCS in the sub escort and mine sweeping roles, and they have not (as you claim) abandoned the roles. Liar much? So what we have here is WestWall thinking the US Navy plans to hunt mines and submarines in 10 feet of water. Never go full retard folks, it's dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Navy's JOB is to project power.  Anywhere.  Homeland defense is the job of the Coast Guard for the most part or didn't you ever read their mission statement....or is it that you have never heard of the COAST GUARD.  And perhaps you don't understand the mission of the *COAST GUARD*?  Or maybe you chose to ignore the *COAST GUARD* because it didn't fit in with your tired narrative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn. For someone who is big on making claims about the LCS mission statement you sure do spend much effort trying to ignore part of it.
> 
> Smarter Security - Page 2
> Officials of both services agree that the Navy's role should be to support the Coast Guard, particularly in areas, such as air defense, where the Coast Guard has little or no capability. Navy officials believe that the Navy, while contributing to maritime homeland security operations, should remain primarily focused on deploying naval forces overseas to provide a forward defense against threats to the United States. 21 Why has the Navy decided it now must employ LCS in homeland security? Will the Navy use LCS to augment the Coast Guard for homeland security missions or conduct separate, stand alone missions? The defense department has offered few specifics about envisioned homeland security duties and the number of littoral combat ships needed. 22 One analyst believes that LCS will be used to guard offshore infrastructure, such as oil platforms or underwater fiber-optic cables. 23 Since the mainstays of homeland security duties are mundane and low-technology, using the littoral ships means their expensive warfare mission modules will find little everyday use. Before the Coast Guard could proceed with incorporating improved homeland security and defense capabilities for its two new maritime security ships, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducted two exhaustive reviews. It would seem reasonable that the DHS decision process would be useful in evaluating the LCS's role in homeland security. Further, if the Navy wants to use the LCS in homeland security, its numbers will be affected by the Coast Guard's contribution of at least 33 major ships. Conversely, the analysis that led to the determination that the Navy needs to employ LCS in homeland security may be used by the Coast Guard to see if it needs additional maritime security ships.
Click to expand...

So we now mean super expensive MINE SWEEPERS..........instead of the cheaper older design that did the job quite well.  Kinda like saying the ship sucks lets change the Mission..............Turn the piece of Junk into a Mine Sweeper.............

Only one place on this planet have we really needed Mine Sweepers........And lately it is not a problem........It is called the Kuwaiti Mine Fields........The currents in this area of the Persian Gulf swirl in BOXES..........Mine Sweepers clear a GRID BOX based on the probable currents in the Grid.....Then call the Box clear..........It is basically the only area of the world that Mine Sweeping is even needed.

The big boys don't use WWII type Magnetic Mines............We use SOSUS and other versions of the same...........I've already posted an example.......These are sophisticated weapons anchored to the ocean floor.  And can identify Submarines or ships by sound.  One of the Greatest examples of this are the GIUK GAP............A system of underwater detection systems with Acusitic Mines.............which will fire a Missile up your ass if activated.........

The other area in regards to Anti Mine Warfare.................DEGAUSSING........Making the ship as Magnetically invisible as possible........

Again............the only area using ancient mines is still the Persian Gulf and Magnetic Mines are OBSOLETE to Modern Militaries.


----------



## eagle1462010

U.S. military enters new generation of sea mine warfare


It was this back in the day.....


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Yes indeed you are.  Thank you for reinforcing what I stated.  Originally ALL ships were supposed to be able to do ALL things.  In other words a modular system.  What I stated was that system had failed and they were transitioning to DEDICATED platforms, as this post shows.  Thanks for proving MY point and proving that you're either a pathological liar, or a moron.  I'll let you choose which one you are.


Yep, the classic pattern of WestWall that we've seen over and over in this forum.

Makes up something stupid when cornered in an argument, then what caught in the lie starts desperately googling and trying to spin his way out of it. Let's review:



westwall said:


> "All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them)



It has since been proven that the Navy has NOT abandoned the other missions for LCS, and the LCS ships are indeed being tasked to work the MCM and ASW missions. What Westwall stated was false, he made it up because he is a compulsive liar who gets caught doing it all the time on these forums, he can't help himself.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> No, it counts as propaganda because the Navy is carrying on as if there is no problem.


Well you've made a nice little niche definition for propaganda.

You said they had abandoned all other missions, and you said it to back up your equally stupid argument that LCS was only designed to work in 10 feet of water.

The fact that the Navy has not abandoned the MCM and ASW missions is not propaganda, you just call it that because you were caught making up bullshit as usual. You're like the pinocchio of USMB, except at this point we could use your nose to build a space elevator.



westwall said:


> *nd based according to a new scheme that jettisons the ship’s once-highly-touted innovations. Gone are radical concepts such as moving LCS crews and mission modules from ship to ship to ship.*


That's right, they are not abandoning all other missions as you claimed and are now desperately trying to spin your way out of.

You lie, you get caught. Repeat dozens of timees.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed you are.  Thank you for reinforcing what I stated.  Originally ALL ships were supposed to be able to do ALL things.  In other words a modular system.  What I stated was that system had failed and they were transitioning to DEDICATED platforms, as this post shows.  Thanks for proving MY point and proving that you're either a pathological liar, or a moron.  I'll let you choose which one you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the classic pattern of WestWall that we've seen over and over in this forum.
> 
> Makes up something stupid when cornered in an argument, then what caught in the lie starts desperately googling and trying to spin his way out of it. Let's review:
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has since been proven that the Navy has NOT abandoned the other missions for LCS, and the LCS ships are indeed being tasked to work the MCM and ASW missions. What Westwall stated was false, he made it up because he is a compulsive liar who gets caught doing it all the time on these forums, he can't help himself.
Click to expand...








Indeed.  The ACCURATE westwall that we all have grown to know and love.  Unlike the lying drain who will cherry pick a single sentence to attempt to have me say something i didn't.  I never claimed that they were abandoning missions as you accuse me of doing.  What I did claim, and which you kindly proved for me, is they have abandoned the modular idea of running the ships.  That's all I claimed, well that and the MCM package doesn't work at all it seems. 

YOU made the rest of your BS up out of whole cloth proving yet again that when you have nothing useful to say, you lie.


----------



## bodecea

BULLDOG said:


> I'm not sure why we are building more ships anyway. The military says they don't need them, but the republican congress told them they had to build more ships, tanks, and planes that are not needed.


Pork.
That's why Byrd was so popular in West Virginia.


----------



## bodecea

Weatherman2020 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ships are not built for survivability anymore. One can debate the merits of the decision because both sides have good points. A battleship can take repeated hits, but costs a million a day to operate.  One of the biggest sea battles of WW2 was the battle of the Philippines, won by tin can destroyers and a few light carriers on sub duty against Jap battleships and heavy cruisers.
> 
> Personally, I like the idea of a lot of fast ships with firepower running around every ocean, even if one hit may sink them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Battle Cruiser (eggshell with a hammer) concept was proven a failure at the Battle of Jutland way back in 1916.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Battle off Samar, 1944
> American:
> 6 escort carriers
> 3 destroyers
> 4 destroyer escorts
> 
> Japanese:
> 4 battleships
> 6 heavy cruisers
> 2 light cruisers
> 11 destroyers
> 
> Result was a decisive American victory.
Click to expand...

Air Superiority.   End of discussion.


----------



## Weatherman2020

bodecea said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the whole idea of a LCS seems pretty stupid to me.  It has no armor to speak of, has all of this stealth tech but is pretty easy to see with the old Mk I eyeball, has limited close in weapons capability and for a ship that is supposed to be operating close to shore those all seem to be some pretty major weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ships are not built for survivability anymore. One can debate the merits of the decision because both sides have good points. A battleship can take repeated hits, but costs a million a day to operate.  One of the biggest sea battles of WW2 was the battle of the Philippines, won by tin can destroyers and a few light carriers on sub duty against Jap battleships and heavy cruisers.
> 
> Personally, I like the idea of a lot of fast ships with firepower running around every ocean, even if one hit may sink them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Battle Cruiser (eggshell with a hammer) concept was proven a failure at the Battle of Jutland way back in 1916.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Battle off Samar, 1944
> American:
> 6 escort carriers
> 3 destroyers
> 4 destroyer escorts
> 
> Japanese:
> 4 battleships
> 6 heavy cruisers
> 2 light cruisers
> 11 destroyers
> 
> Result was a decisive American victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air Superiority.   End of discussion.
Click to expand...

Which is my point, end of discussion.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Indeed.  The ACCURATE westwall that we all have grown to know and love.


Called out dozens and dozens of times on these forums for spouting bullshit. MCM having problems in development is not the same as USN abandoning the mission. You lied. A sad old man with a massive ego problem who gets caught lying again and again.

And you're stuck, because you used abandoning other missions to support your argument that stealth is useless. So I guess we're back to Westwall thinking the US Navy will hunt for subs and mines in 10 feet of water. Never go full retard.


----------



## Manonthestreet

GAbbie gets her Crappy ship.....fitting name for a piece of junk.
Warship named for former Rep. Giffords to be commissioned in Galveston


----------



## Manonthestreet

The Navy “may not” deploy any of the dozen small surface combatants this year despite officials’ previous plans to deploy several to join the 7th and 5th Fleets in Singapore and Bahrain respectively, the US Naval Institute reported.   The report suggests that the Navy has run out of patience for the disappointment mill that is the Littoral Combat Ship, once the backbone of the future fleet that could have 355 ships.  The US Navy basically admitted that the Littoral Combat Ship looks like a massive failure


----------



## eagle1462010

Manonthestreet said:


> The Navy “may not” deploy any of the dozen small surface combatants this year despite officials’ previous plans to deploy several to join the 7th and 5th Fleets in Singapore and Bahrain respectively, the US Naval Institute reported.   The report suggests that the Navy has run out of patience for the disappointment mill that is the Littoral Combat Ship, once the backbone of the future fleet that could have 355 ships.  The US Navy basically admitted that the Littoral Combat Ship looks like a massive failure


Aluminum hull..............built at Austals.............I could have saved them the trouble early on.

LOL...........Wasted money............I agree with a comment from that site you posted.  Give them to the Coast Guard.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Can we cancel the rest please before more money is wasted


----------



## Manonthestreet

It's Official: The U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Is a Complete Failure


----------



## OldLady

Manonthestreet said:


> lives up to its name.....,,.....all it does is break.
> LCS Coronado suffers engineering problem on first deploym | NavyTimes
> The littoral combat ship Coronado suffered an engineering breakdown on Monday, two months into its maiden deployment and is returning to port under its own power to get repaired. It is the fourth high-profile engineering calamity in a year to strike the beleaguered ship class, which has been dogged by combat survivability concerns amid all the engineering problems. The events have prompted the Navy's top officer to fast-track changes to the program currently being briefed to leadership.


They don't make things like they used to.

It does put me in mind of what my father always told me when I was trading cars.  Get something simple that's been around for years.  The new technologies are always full of bugs.


----------



## Manonthestreet

The Navy Now Wants To Retire The First Four Of Its Troublesome Littoral Combat Ships
So bad Navy will start dumping em...  .you will same with F-35 early mods......waste on a scale only govt is capable of it


----------



## westwall

So.  Looks like I was correct eh DrainBamage


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> So.  Looks like I was correct eh DrainBamage


Refresh my memory.

I think you're the guy who said they could just put bigger wings on a Harrier and it would be as good as an F-35B, you mean about that?


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So.  Looks like I was correct eh DrainBamage
> 
> 
> 
> Refresh my memory.
> 
> I think you're the guy who said they could just put bigger wings on a Harrier and it would be as good as an F-35B, you mean about that?
Click to expand...







Try reading the  thread.  You liked the POS and defended them, and I pointed out they were crap.

Nice attempt at deflection though.  Seems I know more than you do.

Go figure.


----------



## DrainBamage

I'm not rereading this entire thread.

Since your main point was to crow and brag let's clarify, you were that harrier guy though right? Just add bigger wings, stealth has no use, supersonic speed has no use, more range has no use, just bigger wings and buy some cameras from Radioshack to match the sensors and it's better than F-35B? Was that you?

If you were then yeah you're definitely an expert in these parts.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> I'm not rereading this entire thread.
> 
> Since your main point was to crow and brag let's clarify, you were that harrier guy though right? Just add bigger wings, stealth has no use, supersonic speed has no use, just bigger wings and buy some cameras from Radioshack to match the sensors and it's better than F-35B? Was that you?
> 
> If you were then yeah you're definitely an expert in these parts.








Yeah, I am the harrier guy.  And in this thread you weren't just wrong.  But catastrophically wrong.  It's just the Navy figured it out sooner than you did.  Or apparently ever will.  As far as the Harrier goes, my point was that the F-35 will never be as good a close air support aircraft as a dedicated one would be.  I have been proven correct on that score too.  I am not against the F-35, i just think it is far too costly for what we are getting.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Yeah, I am the harrier guy.


Okay just wanted to make sure who I was talking to. You're the harrier guy.



westwall said:


> And in this thread you weren't just wrong.  But catastrophically wrong.  It's just the Navy figured it out sooner than you did.


I don't even remember dude, just showing up and saying "nenner I know more" doesn't give enough context.



westwall said:


> As far as the Harrier goes, my point was that the F-35 will never be as good a close air support aircraft as a dedicated one would be.  I have been proven correct on that score too.  I am not against the F-35, i just think it is far too costly for what we are getting.


No, I'm pretty sure you said the harrier would be a better aircraft than F-35B, and were dismissing things like stealth as just a gimmick. It's interesting watching you recast it though.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I am the harrier guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay just wanted to make sure who I was talking to. You're the harrier guy.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in this thread you weren't just wrong.  But catastrophically wrong.  It's just the Navy figured it out sooner than you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't even remember dude, just showing up and saying "nenner I know more" doesn't give enough context.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the Harrier goes, my point was that the F-35 will never be as good a close air support aircraft as a dedicated one would be.  I have been proven correct on that score too.  I am not against the F-35, i just think it is far too costly for what we are getting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm pretty sure you said the harrier would be a better aircraft than F-35B, and were dismissing things like stealth as just a gimmick. It's interesting watching you recast it though.
Click to expand...







No, I just said that for the price of one F-35 you could have 3 Harriers (at the cost estimates back then), and in the CAS role more is better.  But I have a better memory than you do.  Clearly.


----------



## 22lcidw

There has to be regions those ships can deploy.  For the cost we have to get something out of them.  We spend a lot on defense. It is not to much to ask for the best we can get at the inflated prices we pay.


----------



## Likkmee

whitehall said:


> T
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the modern definition of a "combat ship"? Are all the fat asses in the Pentagon still under the delusion of an ocean going war in the age of drones? The last time I saw U.S. Navy sailors in combat they were crying as they were kidnapped by terrorists from a freaking country that doesn't even have a navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you greatly demean the contributions of the Navy in the Middle East.
> 
> Naval ships serve as a mobile launching pad for air and missile weapons. As long as they can do that, they will continue to be a threat, and continue to be threatened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the "contributions of the Navy in the Middle East"?  Bill Clinton threw a couple of million dollar missiles at old training sites but Barry Hussein decided that the Navy was not capable of rescuing the defenders of the Benghazi Alamo. What is the U.S. Navy mission these days?
Click to expand...

deliver mine detectors(marines) so the army K9 dont get hurt going in


----------



## westwall

22lcidw said:


> There has to be regions those ships can deploy.  For the cost we have to get something out of them.  We spend a lot on defense. It is not to much to ask for the best we can get at the inflated prices we pay.








They constantly break down, and they provide no useful service that any other ship can provide.


----------



## HenryBHough

Borillar said:


> If the Navy needs Corvette class ships, they could probably be purchased a lot cheaper from our allies who have more expertise with small ships. A Visby or Braunshweig type ship wold fit the littoral role nicely.



Better yet - cheaper from China!

Right, comrade?


----------

