No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JRT View Post
    [*]There is nothing filling the gap between LCS and DDGs, and DDG resources are already stretched too thin. LCS will offload at least some of that burden. Removing LCS leaves the DDGs at the precipice. Not everything requires the expensive capability set of a DDG.[/LIST]
    All practical points, especially viewed in a "some hull in the water if better than no hull in the water". The attached article would indicate the Navy agrees.

    Navy Sticks With LCS Despite Engine Troubles; Lockheed Races To Make Fix

    "In practical terms, [the delay] has almost zero impact because the LCS has, for the most part, not been deployed," much in the past 15 years said Bryan Clark, an analyst at the Hudson Institute.

    Of course if the LCS is built but not deployed do the hulls count?


    • JRT,

      I was being hyperbolic.

      My point is stop throwing money away, plow it into new FFGs and perhaps some PCs.

      If push comes to shove the LCS's will have to fight...but I don't hold out much hope for their crews surviving.

      The LCS for the Navy is like the idiocy we did in the Army under the Future Combat System...the Navy fielded it and we just sunk $32 Billion into no systems.

      Both should have been killed earlier in their lifecycles.

      The OHP replacements should have been a competent surface combatant and the LCS isn't.
      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
      Mark Twain