Little Crappy Ship

[Weatherman2020]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

What about detection?

 

[westwall]

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.

What about detection?

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

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

 

[westwall]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

What about detection?

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

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

Boeing P-8 Poseidon - Wikipedia

 

[westwall]

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.

What about detection?

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

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

Boeing P-8 Poseidon - Wikipedia

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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!

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]

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.

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!

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.

 

[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]

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.

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!

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.

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