Little Crappy Ship

[westwall]

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

"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.

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.

"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]

"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.

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.

"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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[DrainBamage]

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]

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

You're welcome.

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

 

[DrainBamage]

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]

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.

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]

Are you really that simple minded?

We should report this to a moderator.

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.

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.

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.

Now run along junior.

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

 

[DrainBamage]

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]

Are you really that simple minded?

We should report this to a moderator.

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.

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.

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.

Now run along junior.

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

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.