In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
USS Little Rock to be launched at 10am today.
Doc
Member Posts: 13,898 ✭✭✭
God's speed and best of luck to all who sail on her.
Now go kick some *...
Now go kick some *...
....................................................................................................
Too old to live...too young to die...
Too old to live...too young to die...
Comments
Streaming starts in a few hours (currently 7:50cst as of this posting).
http://lockheedmartin.com/us/products/littoral-combat-ship/lcs9launch.html?sf10718730=1#live
These ships are rather worrisome. Under-manned, under-armed. Built to a lower survivability standard than the ships they replace.
What ships are they replacing?
The LCS is a relatively new concept for the US Navy, and is not a replacement for any legacy vessel.
Brad Steele
Looks like speechifying is going on now.
Who knows when the christening and launch will take place.
Brad Steele
Too old to live...too young to die...
I'm no military expert but I think the idea behind this type of ship is to be fast and maneuverable, capable of operating close to shore delivering assault troops and providing air cover (it carries two attack helicopters). Almost seems like taking the WW II PT boat concept to the next level with guided missile armament. But I think the primary weapon of this ship is the attack helos and it's mainly intended for a support role backing up ground troops operating near the water.
You nailed it Doc.
The Courageous class Battle Cruisers were designed as shallow draft littoral combat ships for Baltic operations, and included an armament of four 15" guns in two turrets. During WW1, obviously, power projection by helo was not an option. The unbuilt 3rd ship of the class was to have two 18" guns in single gun turrets, but this never was never realized.
The ships were lightly constructed and really didn't handle the recoil of the 15" guns. With the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty were ideal candidates for conversion to aircraft carriers, a role in which they served well.
Brad Steele
Brad Steele
The good news is the US Navy has accepted their mistake. Future LCS builds will have increased firepower, armor and crew compliment. They will also be re-designated as Frigates. Existing hulls will be upgraded.
Even so there are ongoing discussions and studies that the LCS hull is not suitable for upgrade to a Frigate. Adding the armor and over the horizon ship killing missile capability it needs displaces space for the helicopter compliment it also needs.
Several friendly nations looked at the LCS, considered buying them. One navy that liked the idea, but not the execution is especially telling. Israel, after studying them and deciding the American execution of the concept would not survive in their waters, Israel will instead design and build their own.
Why?
Have we now resigned ourselves to the notion we will fight all backwater, row-boat drivin', enemies on their own turf, rather than just pounding the living snot out of them from a safe distance with heavy ordnance and wiping their booger encrusted faces from the roles of humanity forever??? Why do we need this capability?
Thank you for your sage insight, o great military genius. [xx(]
Exactly WHO are these "row-boat drivin' [sic]" enemies you are talking about?
How about small diesel subs? Missile carrying patrol/coastal boats like PCMs and PTGs? Gofasters? Speedboat drug smugglers? Coastal smugglers? How about being able to get in close, stealthily, to fire ACCURATELY at coastal SAM sites? What about inserting SOF close to shore where subs can't go? What about...oh never mind. I'm sure you don't understand any of this.
But if they are in fact "backwater" (a ludicrous statement, assuming they are a threat to us) then we NEED this capability to GO "back" water. Hence the term "littoral". Look it up.
As mentioned by Don McManus, The LCS is a relatively new concept for the U. S. Navy, so I was trying to get some internet education and came across this picture of USS Freedom (LCS-1) flying what was to me a strange looking jack.
With a little more internet research I learned the traditional Union Jack
I'm glad I found out about this because I can imagine my embarrassment if I was on Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek and noticed it, then stopped to try to save some squared away young Officer of the Deck from an * chewing. [:I] [B)] [:D]
The good news is the US Navy has accepted their mistake. Future LCS builds will have increased firepower, armor and crew compliment. They will also be re-designated as Frigates. Existing hulls will be upgraded.
Will the hull designation of the new ships be (LCS-) or (FFG-)?
Description
LCS is a fast, agile, focused-mission platform designed for operation in near-shore environments yet capable of open-ocean operation. It is designed to defeat asymmetric "anti-access" threats such as mines, quiet diesel submarines and fast surface craft.
The LCS class consists of two variants, the Freedom variant and the Independence variant - designed and built by two industry teams. The Freedom variant team is led by Lockheed Martin (for the odd-numbered hulls, e.g. LCS 1). The Independence variant team is being led by General Dynamics, Bath Iron Works (LCS 2 and LCS 4) and Austal USA (for the subsequent even-numbered hulls).
The LCS seaframes will be outfitted with reconfigurable payloads, called mission modules (made up of mission systems and support equipment), which can be changed out quickly. These modules combine with crew detachments and aviation assets to become complete mission packages, which will deploy manned and unmanned vehicles and sensors in support of mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare, or surface warfare missions.
Littoral Combat Ship: The Future Is Now
Background
Initiated in February 2002, the LCS program represents a significant reduction in time to acquire, design and build ships in comparison to any previous ship class. Constructed by Lockheed Martin in the Marinette Marine Corporation's shipyard in Marinette, Wis., USS Freedom (LCS 1) was delivered to the Navy on Sept. 18, 2008. USS Independence (LCS 2) was constructed by General Dynamics, Bath Iron Works in the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Ala. and delivered to the Navy on Dec. 18, 2009. Lockheed Martin was also responsible for the construction and delivery of LCS 3 (USS Fort Worth, which was commissioned in September 2012) and General Dynamics for construction and delivery of LCS 4 (the future USS Coronado, which delivered Sept. 27, 2013).
The Navy's LCS acquisition strategy to down select to a single design in 2010 resulted in a highly effective competition and an industry response that produced significant savings in the LCS program. These competitive bids, coupled with the Navy's desire to increase ship procurement rates to support operational requirements, created an opportunity to award both bidders a fixed-price, ten-ship block buy for a total of 20 ships from fiscal years 2010 to 2015.
Contracts were awarded to Lockheed Martin and Austal USA on Dec. 29, 2010, for the construction of up to 10 ships each (FY 2010 - FY 2015), beginning with LCS 5 and LCS 6.
In order to bring operational issues to the forefront, collect data in real-world operational scenarios, and inform the larger LCS fleet integration strategy, the Navy decided to deploy USS Freedom (LCS 1) nearly two years early. On Feb. 16, 2010, the ship deployed to the Fourth Fleet in the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility. During this deployment, Freedom successfully conducted four drug seizures, netting more than five tons of cocaine, detained nine suspected drug smugglers, and disabled two 'go-fast' drug vessels. USS Freedom also participated in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise during this early deployment.
Freedom deployed a second time on March 1, 2013, crossing the Pacific to operate in Southeast Asia out of Singapore for eight months. Marking the first of many planned rotational deployments to the Western Pacific for the LCS platform, Freedom conducted maritime security operations with regional partners and allies. This deployment allowed the Navy to demonstrate Freedom's operational capabilities as well as evaluate crew rotation and maintenance plans for the entire LCS class.
Following her commissioning in Mobile, Ala. in January 2010, Independence continued on to her homeport in San Diego, Calif., and conducted Post Delivery Test and Trials (PDTT) and a Post Shakedown Availability (PSA). She participated in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise 2014. LCS 2#65533;s Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) with the Mine Countermeasure (MCM) Mission Package is planned for August 2015.
Following the commissioning of Fort Worth in Galveston, Texas in September 2012, and Coronado in Coronado, Calif. in April 2014, LCS 3 and LCS 4 joined sister ships Freedom and Independence in their homeport, San Diego. While San Diego will be the homeport for the majority of the first 24 littoral combat ships, several of the later Freedom variant hulls are planned for homeporting in Mayport, Fla.
Fort Worth completed Surface Warfare (SUW) Mission Package IOT&E on April 18, 2014, satisfying the IOT&E and Initial Operational Capability (IOC) program milestones. She also completed Total Ship Survivability Trials (TSST) in October 2014. Fort Worth departed San Diego Nov. 17, 2014, for a 16-month rotational deployment to Singapore in support of the Navy's strategic rebalance to the Pacific.
Coronado, a RIMPAC 2014 participant, will complete PSA in March 2015, will officially transfer to the fleet in April 2015, and will conduct IOT&E with the Surface Warfare (SUW) Mission Package in August 2015.
Milwaukee (LCS 5), Detroit (LCS 7), Little Rock (LCS 9), Sioux City (LCS 11), and Wichita (LCS 13) are under contract to Lockheed Martin and are in construction at the Marinette Marine Corp. shipyard. Jackson (LCS 6), Montgomery (LCS 8), Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10), Omaha (LCS 12), and Manchester (LCS 14) are under contract to Austal USA and are in construction at the Austal USA shipyard.
Billings (LCS 15), Indianapolis (LCS 17) and LCS 19 are under contract with Lockheed Martin and in the pre-production phase at Marinette Marine Corp, while Tulsa (LCS 16), Charleston (LCS 18), and LCS 20 are under contract with Austal USA and in the pre-production phase.
Point Of Contact
Office of Corporate Communication
Naval Sea Systems Command (OOD)
Washington, D.C. 20362
General Characteristics, Freedom variant
Builder: Lockheed Martin
Length: 387.6 ft. (118.1 meters)
Beam: 57.7 ft. (17.6 meters)
Displacement: approximately 3,400 MT full load
Draft: 14.1 ft. (4.3 meters)
Speed: 40+ knots
Ships:
USS Freedom (LCS 1), San Diego, CA
PCU Sioux City (LCS 11) - under construction
PCU Wichita (LCS 13) - in pre-production phase
PCU Billings (LCS 15) - in pre-production phase
USS Fort Worth (LCS 3), San Diego, CA
PCU Milwaukee (LCS 5) - under construction
PCU Detroit (LCS 7) - under construction
PCU Little Rock (LCS 9) - under construction
General Characteristics, Independent variant
Builder: General Dynamics (LCS 2 and LCS 4), Austal USA (LCS 6 and follow)
Length: 418.6 ft. (127.6 meters)
Height: 103.7 ft. (31.6 meters)
Beam: 103.7 ft. (31.6 meters)
Displacement: approximately 3,100 MT full load
Draft: 14.4 ft. (4.4 meters)
Ships:
PCU Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) - under construction
PCU Omaha (LCS 12) - under construction
PCU Manchester (LCS 14) - in pre-production phase
PCU Tulsa (LCS 16) - in pre-production phase
USS Independence (LCS 2), San Diego, CA
USS Coronado (LCS 4), San Diego, CA
PCU Jackson (LCS 6) - under construction
PCU Montgomery (LCS 8) - under construction
Last Update: 9 January 2015
Above from the navy
LINK TO BETTER UNDERSTANDING:::::: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-new-littoral-combat-ships-updated-01343/
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Flying Clay Disk
Why?
Have we now resigned ourselves to the notion we will fight all backwater, row-boat drivin', enemies on their own turf, rather than just pounding the living snot out of them from a safe distance with heavy ordnance and wiping their booger encrusted faces from the roles of humanity forever??? Why do we need this capability?
Thank you for your sage insight, o great military genius. [xx(]
Exactly WHO are these "row-boat drivin' [sic]" enemies you are talking about?
How about small diesel subs? Missile carrying patrol/coastal boats like PCMs and PTGs? Gofasters? Speedboat drug smugglers? Coastal smugglers? How about being able to get in close, stealthily, to fire ACCURATELY at coastal SAM sites? What about inserting SOF close to shore where subs can't go? What about...oh never mind. I'm sure you don't understand any of this.
But if they are in fact "backwater" (a ludicrous statement, assuming they are a threat to us) then we NEED this capability to GO "back" water. Hence the term "littoral". Look it up.
So, do you feel better now???
It's astounding not that you completely missed the point, but by how much you missed it!
So, do tell us, 'Admiral Nimitz'...what role exactly does this $350M under-armored, under-gunned and under-manned vessel fill which another US Naval vessel doesn't already fill??? Enlighten us, please!
Is it a patrol boat? Nope, already got those. Is it a frigate? Nope, got those too. Is it a destroyer? Hardly, a 'destroyee' maybe.
What purpose does this magnificent vessel serve other than to line the pockets of some politicians, and more importantly put the lives of more American service men and women at risk???
Anything this boat can do, we can already do, faster, from further away, with more firepower and more decisively. I certainly hope we didn't drop $350M on another SEAL delivery vehicle because we've got plenty of those already. Small subs you say??? When was the last time our Navy even encountered a 'small sub'??? Oh, and this vessel isn't even equipped for any serious anti-submarine warfare itself anyway (the helos might be, but it isn't). OOPS!
Patrol boats, go-fasts and speedboats you say? This thing won't be anymore effective at those threats than existing vessels with Phalanx CIWS systems on them. And if they're that close to shore, why do we even care? To cover ground invasion forces??? Yeah, we do a lot of that anymore don't we?? Coastal smugglers / drug smugglers???? Not the job of the US Navy last time I checked. Pirates maybe, but there's plenty of far more effective equipment to deal with pirates (can you say helicopters and radar?)
And, for your information, I am acutely aware of the meaning of 'littoral' without the need to look it up, thank you. And, it was precisely the reason I used the term 'back water'.
Lastly, while you may think differently, I strongly support ALL of our brave service men and women in the armed forces. However, I am growing very weary of an ever more corrupt government which serves their own interests before the interests of those who defend them! This is yet another example.
Oh, and while we're at it; perhaps you might consider 'looking something up'. Perhaps do a little research on all the turbulent waters this class of vessel has been through during it's development. If you're not asking questions then...you're not paying attention.
Bottom line...this vessel is nothing more than another Bradley Fighting Vehicle which floats on water. Mark my words.
As I said:
"I'm sure you don't understand any of this." I have certainly "Marked" your words.
The Navy is phasing out Frigates. Or didn't you know that? They were often sent to work independently from ARGs or CVBGs, because they could get in close to shore and had armament for small, fast combatants. I personally have worked with FFGs doing this mission. The LCS would be GREAT at this mission.
Our Navy encounters "small subs" every year...in exercises, when our carriers deploy, all over the world, from our allies AND our adversaries. Or didn't you know that? I personally have worked with MANY types of diesel subs. The LCS would be GREAT at this mission.
The CIWS is not for small speed boats or gofasters. Or didn't you know that? They are mostly designed for anti-missile work. I have personally worked with CIWS on my carriers, as they took out towed drones. The CIWS can certainly do it, somewhat, but more likely are .50 caliber gun mounts manned by trained Sailors.
Ground invasion forces? The US Marines are primarily a power projection from the sea force. Or didn't you know that? A large part of our Navy (the "Gator" Navy) is designed for amphibious landings. And yes, we need combatants to defend the gators. I have personally flown patrol missions supporting amphibious landings (in exercises). I have also personally been on an LCAC, which is designed to take Marines across the beach. You would have us disarm, then, since in your opinion amphibious landings won't happen again? Precisely what many were saying after WWII...and then Inchon happened.
The helos are ON the ship. Or didn't you know that? They support the ship's mission. Anti-submarine warfare (now called Undersea Warfare, USW) is a prime mission of the LCS. My aircraft is a USW platform primarily, and I have personally conducted this mission with accompanying helicopters and ships. The LCS gets the helos close to the sub operating areas, while maintaining survivability.
Is this a perfect vessel? No. I believe several here (Don and Chris notably) have stated that the Navy is making the next generation better...and as a testbed this platform has been a good value at "only" $350 million. Who cares if a politician gets rich? Clearly corruption is bad...but I will buy the product, if it's good, even IF the makers makes money! I believe in Capitalism...and I just want the Navy personnel taken care of. It would be like using a 2015 Ford F-150, or a 1990 Ford F-150. They were both designed to do the same thing, but the newer one is SO much better in all respects.
In firefighting capability, survivability, firepower, speed, crew comfort, communications, versatility, etc. etc., the LCS is better than the old FFGs, or any "similar" vessel. We HAVE to keep improving our stuff. I don't think you would want our Army folks to be still using the M1 Garand, would you? Or the Sherman tank? Or maybe you would. I have NO experience with tanks, but I sure don't want to stand in the way of upgrades.
Our Sailors ARE going in harm's way, like it or not. Or didn't you know that? They need the best stuff possible. I'll worry about the politicians later. I have personally flown an OLD aircraft, now being upgraded to the P-8. And I don't care if people get rich off it. I just want my Navy to have the best equipment.
So this is not a personal attack on you; it is a defense of the Navy, who is defending YOU. And you never answered my first question: who is the "row boat" Navy you think we are preparing to fight?
There IS no "safe" distance. Often you have to go in, wade into the enemy, and fight him hand to hand. Or didn't you know that? I personally know that anti-aircraft tracers look JUST like they do on CNN...slowly reaching up to you. It's frightening, but has to be done.
Never mind--you're tired of supporting politicians? I'm tired of hearing people bash the military and then in the same breath CLAIM that they "strongly support all of our brave men and women in the armed forces". Just admit you don't support the military and be done with it. Why lie?
This vessel has indeed undergone turbulent waters. No new system has NOT. Or didn't you know that?
And please, let's not be so formal. You can call me "Chester". Or Commander, as most people do.
I thought these were being built in Mobile, AL....
Some of them are but they are a different type of Ship.
They are a trimaran hull like the Independence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Independence_(LCS-2)
Here is the wiki on both ship types:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship
The USN basically said lets see what you got and these two companys built their version of a LCS. The USN liked both and so we have one class with 2 types of ships that look totally different but do the same job.
Too old to live...too young to die...
FCD- Your hatred and contempt for this ship seems to run deep. I started this thread because I thought it was cool a new Navy ship named after my home city was being christened. I'm sorry you have such negative feelings towards this class of vessel, and I didn't mean to get you riled up with my post. On the other hand, could I ask you to restrain your expressions of disdain as you're really turning the tone of the thread into something ugly. If you want to start your own thread and condemn the LCSs please feel free to do so.
Lighten up, Francis. Geez.
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Flying Clay Disk
Why?
Have we now resigned ourselves to the notion we will fight all backwater, row-boat drivin', enemies on their own turf, rather than just pounding the living snot out of them from a safe distance with heavy ordnance and wiping their booger encrusted faces from the roles of humanity forever??? Why do we need this capability?
Thank you for your sage insight, o great military genius. [xx(]
Exactly WHO are these "row-boat drivin' [sic]" enemies you are talking about?
How about small diesel subs? Missile carrying patrol/coastal boats like PCMs and PTGs? Gofasters? Speedboat drug smugglers? Coastal smugglers? How about being able to get in close, stealthily, to fire ACCURATELY at coastal SAM sites? What about inserting SOF close to shore where subs can't go? What about...oh never mind. I'm sure you don't understand any of this.
But if they are in fact "backwater" (a ludicrous statement, assuming they are a threat to us) then we NEED this capability to GO "back" water. Hence the term "littoral". Look it up.
So, do you feel better now???
It's astounding not that you completely missed the point, but by how much you missed it!
So, do tell us, 'Admiral Nimitz'...what role exactly does this $350M under-armored, under-gunned and under-manned vessel fill which another US Naval vessel doesn't already fill??? Enlighten us, please!
Is it a patrol boat? Nope, already got those. Is it a frigate? Nope, got those too. Is it a destroyer? Hardly, a 'destroyee' maybe.
What purpose does this magnificent vessel serve other than to line the pockets of some politicians, and more importantly put the lives of more American service men and women at risk???
Anything this boat can do, we can already do, faster, from further away, with more firepower and more decisively. I certainly hope we didn't drop $350M on another SEAL delivery vehicle because we've got plenty of those already. Small subs you say??? When was the last time our Navy even encountered a 'small sub'??? Oh, and this vessel isn't even equipped for any serious anti-submarine warfare itself anyway (the helos might be, but it isn't). OOPS!
Patrol boats, go-fasts and speedboats you say? This thing won't be anymore effective at those threats than existing vessels with Phalanx CIWS systems on them. And if they're that close to shore, why do we even care? To cover ground invasion forces??? Yeah, we do a lot of that anymore don't we?? Coastal smugglers / drug smugglers???? Not the job of the US Navy last time I checked. Pirates maybe, but there's plenty of far more effective equipment to deal with pirates (can you say helicopters and radar?)
And, for your information, I am acutely aware of the meaning of 'littoral' without the need to look it up, thank you. And, it was precisely the reason I used the term 'back water'.
Lastly, while you may think differently, I strongly support ALL of our brave service men and women in the armed forces. However, I am growing very weary of an ever more corrupt government which serves their own interests before the interests of those who defend them! This is yet another example.
Oh, and while we're at it; perhaps you might consider 'looking something up'. Perhaps do a little research on all the turbulent waters this class of vessel has been through during it's development. If you're not asking questions then...you're not paying attention.
Bottom line...this vessel is nothing more than another Bradley Fighting Vehicle which floats on water. Mark my words.
Lighten up Francis.
Just enjoy the blanket of freedom you sleep under.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy
The LCS is a bit smaller than a Frigate, of which we still have three from the Oliver Hazard Perry class. Problem is the trade-offs for speed and shallower draft give the LCS about 1/3 to 1/5 the crew and hardly half the firepower. Also the LCS has about 22% less cruising range than the OHP frigates. Thus a ship that would take on many of the missions the frigates were commonly called upon to do is ill equipped to do so.
On the other hand the LCS is a good deal larger than a Patrol Boat. We have a bunch of those. Patrol boats are fine for their intended uses but are much too small to fill the LCS or frigate's place.
It is a fine thing that we are building new ships. Our Navy needs them. Just wish they'd gotten it right instead of having to go back and fix ships that are already built or are under construction.
No patrol vessel, including Patrol Gunboats could realistically be considered a substitute for either of them and anybody who would consider it should be housed in a rubber room.
I could see the LCS performing some of the duties of a Frigate and almost all of the Patrol Gunboat's.
I have no idea what the planning is, but I wonder if it's a coincidence that Middle East countries which have navies are mostly Patrol Gunboats. Could it be part of a plan to keep the oil flowing or reopen waterways? Maybe to protect larger ships from swarm kamikaze attacks?
Note: There is some confusion about Patrol Gunboats (PG) and patrol boats (PBR, 32 feet, PCF, 50 feet, etc.). Patrol boats are the small craft you see in the movie, Apocalypse Now. They can be carried by a helicopter. They have an Officer in Charge (OIC), usually a Chief Petty Officer.
Patrol Gunboats (PG) are small ships. They displace 247 tons. They are 165 feet long and 24 feet at the beam. Ship's propulsion is two diesel engines and one General Electric LM-1500 Gas Turbine engine. They carry a crew of 24 including a Commanding Officer, usually a Lieutenant Commander or Lieutenant, an Executive Officer, usually a Lieutenant, two other officers, four Chief Petty Officers and sixteen E-6 and below.
The main ship's battery is a 3"/50 caliber gun forward. Twin 40mm aft. Two twin .50 caliber machine guns on the 01 level and M60 7.62mm machine guns at various places throughout the ship.
Making a combat vehicle a compromise may not be the best idea. On the LCS, I am certainly no expert on naval warfare, but maybe we should reserve final judgment until we've actually seen one perform in the real world?
I think the A10 Warthog was condemned when introduced as too heavy, too slow, etc. yet it proved itself as a tank killer in combat that could bring the pilot home despite massive damage.
Too old to live...too young to die...
As I recall the F14 Tomcat was intended to be an interceptor, designed to locate and destroy enemy aircraft. Then someone decided it should have surface/ground attack capabilities, too. So bombs and missiles were added making it much heavier, less nimble, and underpowered with all the added weight.
Making a combat vehicle a compromise may not be the best idea. On the LCS, I am certainly no expert on naval warfare, but maybe we should reserve final judgment until we've actually seen one perform in the real world?
I think the A10 Warthog was condemned when introduced as too heavy, too slow, etc. yet it proved itself as a tank killer in combat that could bring the pilot home despite massive damage.
The F-14 remained a pure fighter, interceptor and dog fighter for its entire life as a front line aircraft. It was only late in its career as it was being phased out and we were phasing out oil burning carriers that it was converted for bomb carrying. Absent the conversion, those still capable airframes probably would have been retired.
Brad Steele