Thread: LCS christened

100% success rate for the SM-3? Last I heard it was 6/7 in tests. We don't know about combat performance. Not knocking the missile, considering it's so new, but it's better not to be complacent.

Originally Posted by HKDan

As for their missile threat...well, its a long way from testing a nuclear device to making one small enough to put on a missile. Then you need to have a missile that actually works....Personally I think that the NK threat is getting more hollow by the day. The LCS on the other hand is a needed platform because in spite of what some of us see as its faults we do need to replace the OHPs and do it in a hurry.

Oh?

What if they drive it right to the DMZ in a truck and blow it up(thereby blowing a hole several Km wide in Allied defenses along the DMZ)?

Originally Posted by HKDan

The LCS on the other hand is a needed platform because in spite of what some of us see as its faults we do need to replace the OHPs and do it in a hurry.

Needed for what exactly? What is it we need a 40kt frigate with almost no weaponry whatsoever for?

Cause i fail to see it.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Needed for what exactly? What is it we need a 40kt frigate with almost no weaponry whatsoever for?

Cause i fail to see it.

Everyone can see the need for a 40kt minesweeper.. surely.

Everyone can also see the need for a vessel that can operate independently in litoral waters with only point anti-air/missile defences.

Surely its obvious that what is needed are flexible mission modules that can be changed during a mission at sea, without the need to return to dock... oh wait, can the LCS do this?

As with all groundbreaking ideas, there are good and bad points to the LCS. I just cant get over the fact that for the sake of a few hundred extra tonnes and a few extra kts, the LCS is vulnerable and tactically inflexible to a ridiculous degree. The USVs, UCAVs etc that are mooted for the LCS will go some way to making up for this - but still dont address the risks from aircraft, OTH missiles etc. Nor do they account for why the organic offensive capability of the ship is virtually nil. The LCS can never safely operate independently in a zone with a high threat level. The whole "small boat" preoccupation that seems to have had a hand in the LCS's design is also wildly over-exxagerated.

I am not trying to defend the LCS. It is a concept that I have issues with, particularly its armament. I am however trying to point out that the OHP frigates are at the end of their time in the USN and need to be replaced asafp. Furthermore the current minesweepers operated by the USN are not adequate at all. The only candidate right now is the LCS. Hence it is needed. Would I prefer something else? Very possibly. But in the world that we live in the LCS is the only game in town. The USN is not going to get anything else.
As for NK...I still think that Kim is a blowhard. Yes, he could put a nuclear device in a truck and blow a hole in the line. Which they would then have to exploit. Chances are that IF they have fuel and their tanks have not completely rusted the NKs will only make it as far as the nearest supermarket. The biggest threat that NK poses to SK now is the threat of breaking their economy trying to rebuild one of the least developed countries in the world after after the North koreans collapse under the weight of their rusting 1950's era artillery. Just my two cents.

Originally Posted by rickusn

Neither the Proceedigs article or the CBO report stated anything about retiring AB DDG's premarurely.

Once again Sniper you are being taken advantage of by idiots.

You well know that I have the Proceedings article right in front of me and that I have read and posted the referenced CBO report many months ealier.

But believe what you want.

I mean no offense whatsoever, but you read the article. I just repeated what the Naval Institute pubishing staff decided and approved to publish in THE most reputable US Naval monthly publication. September issue, on the DDG-1000, as to whether we could afford it, and the options considered to afford it, which included going to only 7 carriers, and or even fewer submarines. The CBO suggested retiring 32 of the ABs and keeping 28 for extended service. I would reference it but I lost that particular magazine. It must be seriously considered because the next month's, October, spent a whole article in how the newer designs were not worth it and we should do some sort of FRAM program on the ABs, and Tico's. Clearly there is consideration to doing just what was presented in the Sept issue, not that I wish it.
Unfortunately, even those in the military are subject to political moves. Maybe this was a "scare" tactic to get congress to fund both the 'Blue' and 'Brown' water programs? Regardless, I am guessing the newer DDG and CG designs on the drawing boards may be history, or at best technology demonstrators.

Originally Posted by HKDan

The biggest threat that NK poses to SK now is the threat of breaking their economy trying to rebuild one of the least developed countries in the world after after the North koreans collapse under the weight of their rusting 1950's era artillery. Just my two cents.

Until the system supporting that military has collapsed, I will not sleep any better. Like Iran, the NK leader is a nutcase and the solution to that problem is not an easy one.

While N Korea is a dangerous country the threat that is posed by that teetering system is overrated. What really keeps anyone from doing something about them is not the military threat that they pose, but the fact that no one wants to take responsibility for the rebuilding of that poor shattered country. One suggestion that I have read on these boards that i really agree with is the idea of pulling US troops out of Korea totally. It would take the wind right out of Kim's sails and put him in a very difficult situation. Iran on the other hand is fully frightening. If that nutjob there gets nukes we will absolutely have something to lose sleep over. I think that Iran is where we should be focusing our efforts.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Oh?

What if they drive it right to the DMZ in a truck and blow it up(thereby blowing a hole several Km wide in Allied defenses along the DMZ)?


Needed for what exactly? What is it we need a 40kt frigate with almost no weaponry whatsoever for?

Cause i fail to see it.

Well, we could spend even more for an LCS for what is advertised as for even less capability. Russians could offer an even more heavily armed frigate with supersonic SSMs and whatever else a LCS might show up dressed as, and sink it. And why? I am wondering if we should be buying large amounts of Russian hardware, like SU-30's, and Frigates, and Shkvall's, and SA-20's, and KA-50's, Moskit's, and Shipwreck missiles, and whatever else the free market will let us buy that even the Russians can't afford.
Civillian "go figure"...
Hey, it's my tax money, why not wonder how to spend it, and why not advertise the best use of it?