Little Crappy Ship

[westwall]

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.

IIRC these were maintenance nightmares, however, with the newer modern technology available I believe that this design could indeed be the solution to the issues at hand. Pound for pound these were the most heavily armed vessels in US Navy history absent nukes.

 

[DrainBamage]

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.

Today's award for making shit up and spouting it as fact goes to Westwall. When you're losing an argument so badly it has become a spectacle... just start calling inconvenient facts "propaganda" and be done with it. Applause. Bonus hilarity is how often you've flailed about inventing mission statements for LCS, and are now forced to discount as propaganda most of the roles in the real one.

And to top it off amidst all your blather you've got your facts wrong as usual, they haven't abandoned the antisubmarine or minesweeping missions for LCS. There will be LCS ships that specialize in ASW, ASUW or MCM instead of switchable mission modules.

On LCS mine hunting, from April 2017: Navy League 2017: USN to employ two more CUSVs for mine-hunting on LCS | Jane's 360
On LCS mine hunting, from May 2017: LCS Mine Countermeasures Package May Be Headed For Single IOT&E For All 4 Increments - USNI News
On LCS sub escort, from Jan 2017: Major LCS Mission Package Decision Nears
On LCS sub escort, from Nov 2016 - Navy pursues lightweight sonar and sensor systems to boost Littoral Combat Ship ASW capabilities

Beginning in Fall 2016, the Navy would start to phase out the 3:2:1 crewing construct and transition to a Blue/Gold model similar to the one used in crewing Ballistic Missile submarines, patrol craft and minesweepers. The LCS crews would also merge, train and rotate with mission module detachment crews, organizing as four-ship divisions of a single warfare area -- either surface warfare (SUW), mine warfare (MCM) or anti-submarine warfare (ASW). The first four LCS ships (LCS 1-4) will become testing ships. Like the training ships, testing ships will be single-crewed and could be deployed as fleet assets if needed on a limited basis


Clearly USN is still awarding contracts and doing testing for LCS in the sub escort and mine sweeping roles, and they have not (as you claim) abandoned the roles. Liar much? So what we have here is WestWall thinking the US Navy plans to hunt mines and submarines in 10 feet of water. Never go full retard folks, it's dangerous.

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?

Yawn. For someone who is big on making claims about the LCS mission statement you sure do spend much effort trying to ignore part of it.

Smarter Security - Page 2
Officials of both services agree that the Navy's role should be to support the Coast Guard, particularly in areas, such as air defense, where the Coast Guard has little or no capability. Navy officials believe that the Navy, while contributing to maritime homeland security operations, should remain primarily focused on deploying naval forces overseas to provide a forward defense against threats to the United States. 21 Why has the Navy decided it now must employ LCS in homeland security? Will the Navy use LCS to augment the Coast Guard for homeland security missions or conduct separate, stand alone missions? The defense department has offered few specifics about envisioned homeland security duties and the number of littoral combat ships needed. 22 One analyst believes that LCS will be used to guard offshore infrastructure, such as oil platforms or underwater fiber-optic cables. 23 Since the mainstays of homeland security duties are mundane and low-technology, using the littoral ships means their expensive warfare mission modules will find little everyday use. Before the Coast Guard could proceed with incorporating improved homeland security and defense capabilities for its two new maritime security ships, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducted two exhaustive reviews. It would seem reasonable that the DHS decision process would be useful in evaluating the LCS's role in homeland security. Further, if the Navy wants to use the LCS in homeland security, its numbers will be affected by the Coast Guard's contribution of at least 33 major ships. Conversely, the analysis that led to the determination that the Navy needs to employ LCS in homeland security may be used by the Coast Guard to see if it needs additional maritime security ships.

 

[DrainBamage]

This is a fitting reference given Westwall's beautiful speech about how homeland security is the job of the COAST GUARD and how that must discount any possibility of a USN ship having a role in it.

"the U.S. Navy proceeded to procure six PHMs, which were highly successful in conducting coastal operations, such as narcotics interdiction and coastal patrol, in the Caribbean basin"

Sheesh imagine that, Navy assets doing homeland security role. Impossible!

 

[westwall]

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.

Today's award for making shit up and spouting it as fact goes to Westwall. When you're losing an argument so badly it has become a spectacle... just start calling inconvenient facts "propaganda" and be done with it. Applause. Bonus hilarity is how often you've flailed about inventing mission statements for LCS, and are now forced to discount as propaganda most of the roles in the real one.

And to top it off amidst all your blather you've got your facts wrong as usual, they haven't abandoned the antisubmarine or minesweeping missions for LCS. There will be LCS ships that specialize in ASW, ASUW or MCM instead of switchable mission modules.

On LCS mine hunting, from April 2017: Navy League 2017: USN to employ two more CUSVs for mine-hunting on LCS | Jane's 360
On LCS mine hunting, from May 2017: LCS Mine Countermeasures Package May Be Headed For Single IOT&E For All 4 Increments - USNI News
On LCS sub escort, from Jan 2017: Major LCS Mission Package Decision Nears
On LCS sub escort, from Nov 2016 - Navy pursues lightweight sonar and sensor systems to boost Littoral Combat Ship ASW capabilities

Beginning in Fall 2016, the Navy would start to phase out the 3:2:1 crewing construct and transition to a Blue/Gold model similar to the one used in crewing Ballistic Missile submarines, patrol craft and minesweepers. The LCS crews would also merge, train and rotate with mission module detachment crews, organizing as four-ship divisions of a single warfare area -- either surface warfare (SUW), mine warfare (MCM) or anti-submarine warfare (ASW). The first four LCS ships (LCS 1-4) will become testing ships. Like the training ships, testing ships will be single-crewed and could be deployed as fleet assets if needed on a limited basis


Clearly USN is still awarding contracts and doing testing for LCS in the sub escort and mine sweeping roles, and they have not (as you claim) abandoned the roles. Liar much? So what we have here is WestWall thinking the US Navy plans to hunt mines and submarines in 10 feet of water. Never go full retard folks, it's dangerous.

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?

Yawn. For someone who is big on making claims about the LCS mission statement you sure do spend much effort trying to ignore part of it.

Smarter Security - Page 2
Officials of both services agree that the Navy's role should be to support the Coast Guard, particularly in areas, such as air defense, where the Coast Guard has little or no capability. Navy officials believe that the Navy, while contributing to maritime homeland security operations, should remain primarily focused on deploying naval forces overseas to provide a forward defense against threats to the United States. 21 Why has the Navy decided it now must employ LCS in homeland security? Will the Navy use LCS to augment the Coast Guard for homeland security missions or conduct separate, stand alone missions? The defense department has offered few specifics about envisioned homeland security duties and the number of littoral combat ships needed. 22 One analyst believes that LCS will be used to guard offshore infrastructure, such as oil platforms or underwater fiber-optic cables. 23 Since the mainstays of homeland security duties are mundane and low-technology, using the littoral ships means their expensive warfare mission modules will find little everyday use. Before the Coast Guard could proceed with incorporating improved homeland security and defense capabilities for its two new maritime security ships, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducted two exhaustive reviews. It would seem reasonable that the DHS decision process would be useful in evaluating the LCS's role in homeland security. Further, if the Navy wants to use the LCS in homeland security, its numbers will be affected by the Coast Guard's contribution of at least 33 major ships. Conversely, the analysis that led to the determination that the Navy needs to employ LCS in homeland security may be used by the Coast Guard to see if it needs additional maritime security ships.

Yeah, you're good at dredging up the propaganda. How about the real questions...


LCS: Controversies & Cautions

The cost and size of LCS ships are now comparable to other countries’ high-end naval frigates. As the US Navy’s primary low-end vessels in the future fleet, they will be expected to perform many of the same roles. The cargo hold’s size has created some challenges in fitting all of the required equipment into the mission modules, without compromising high-end performance at the modules’ particular tasks. Even so, LCS ships can be expected to perform the mine countermeasures role very well, and the frigates’ traditional anti-submarine role reasonably well, thanks to their helicopters, array of robots, and rapidly upgradeable systems.


Present LCS designs don’t even carry torpedo tubes, or vertical-launch systems (VLS) that could accommodate present and future attack and/or defensive missiles. Even with the Surface Warfare module installed, LCS ships will carry a very light armament set for a major naval vessel: a 57-mm Mk 110 naval gun system

; RIM-116 SeaRAM short range defensive missiles; 30mm cannons that would replace very short range Griffin missile launchers if installed; 12.7mm machine guns; plus any missiles or 70mm rockets carried by its accompanying helicopters (up to 2 H-60 slots or up to 4 MQ-8B Fire Scout UAV slots).


Meanwhile, survivability has become an issue on 3 fronts. One is the slim margins created by a very small crew, leaving little margin for tasks like damage control if automated systems are damaged or fail. The other issues involve questions of shock/survivability testing, and of aluminum structures. The original concept for LCS was a ship whose damage resistance could save the crew, but not the ship, in the event if a significant strike. That was upgraded slightly to potentially saving the crew and the ship, but not continuing to fight while doing so. As the Exocet missile strikes on the HMS Sheffield (sank) and USS Stark (survived, barely) proved, even steel warships designed to keep fighting after a strike may find it challenging to meet their design specifications. Navy revelations that the LCS ships would not meet even Level I standards, let alone the OPNAVINST 9070.1 Level II standard of the frigates they’ll replace, has caused some consternation.


LCS: The USAs Littoral Combat Ships




All that this shows is the system of acquisition was flawed. They decided to order TWO competing designs to see which they liked better. That's fine. But you only order ONE OF EACH. Not multiples. Having two designs for the same mission doubles your operational maintenance costs for a single mission. That's stupid. The revelations that they violated basic design principles just further boggles the mind.

 

[westwall]

This is a fitting reference given Westwall's beautiful speech about how homeland security is the job of the COAST GUARD and how that must discount any possibility of a USN ship having a role in it.

"the U.S. Navy proceeded to procure six PHMs, which were highly successful in conducting coastal operations, such as narcotics interdiction and coastal patrol, in the Caribbean basin"

Sheesh imagine that, Navy assets doing homeland security role. Impossible!

The Pegasus was a experimental design. The Coast Guard would have ended up with them had the production continued. You should look at the capabilities of the vessel. They were actually very far ahead of their time. The problem was the Navy didn't like them because they were small (kind of like how the Air Force seems to think that every aircraft in the inventory MUST GO SUPERSONIC, regardless if it is beneficial to the mission or not). The crews loved them.

But, yet again, you fail to address the very real problems of the LCS and instead resort to simple name calling and propaganda posting. Much like your alter ego.

 

[DrainBamage]

Yeah, you're good at dredging up the propaganda.

You do have a funny habit of labeling anything that exposes the bullshit you shovel as "propaganda", typical cop-out of someone backed into a corner and unable to argue against real facts. You claim they have abandoned the sub and minesweep missions of LCS, but that is false and directly contradicted by news from 2017 about US Navy plans for LCS in both missions.

Fact = they have formed MCM and ASW detachments
Fact = they are actively testing MCM remote operations vehicles for LCS mine role
Fact = they are continuing to develop/test the variable depth sonar and mutifunction towed array for LCS sub role

When you say they have abandoned these roles you are lying, not debating. When caught in these lies and you dismiss clear evidence as "propaganda" you humiliate yourself since anyone can use google and confirm that USN is moving forward with mission packages and technology for LCS to support these roles.

You are a liar, it is easily proven, and you should feel terrible about it.

How about the real questions...

Translation: "I was caught in yet another lie, quick look over here!"

 

[westwall]

Yeah, you're good at dredging up the propaganda.

You do have a funny habit of labeling anything that exposes the bullshit you shovel as "propaganda", typical cop-out of someone backed into a corner and unable to argue against real facts. You claim they have abandoned the sub and minesweep missions of LCS, but that is false and directly contradicted by news from 2017 about US Navy plans for LCS in both missions.

Fact = they have formed MCM and ASW detachments
Fact = they are actively testing MCM remote operations vehicles for LCS mine role
Fact = they are continuing to develop/test the variable depth sonar and mutifunction towed array for LCS sub role

When you say they have abandoned these roles you are lying, not debating. When caught in these lies and you dismiss clear evidence as "propaganda" you humiliate yourself since anyone can use google and confirm that USN is moving forward with mission packages and technology for LCS to support these roles.

You are a liar, it is easily proven, and you should feel terrible about it.

How about the real questions...

Translation: "I was caught in yet another lie, quick look over here!"

Fact: The MCM and ASW packages could go on almost any vessel. The MCM currently doesn't even work. The ASW "package" is almost entirely helicopter born so that is the most effective one because, surprise, the helicopters aren't part of the damned ship!

Fact: They are desperately trying to come up with a mine detection system......THAT WORKS! So far, no joy.

Fact: Of course they are continuing to test the towed array sonar system. Whenever they can actually get one of the LCS's to sea that's pretty much all they do is test things. Duh.

LOCKHEED MARTIN'S LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP MILWAUKEE (LCS 5). PROBABLY THE WORLD'S PRETTIEST MINESWEEPER... THAT STILL CAN'T SWEEP MINES. IMAGE SOURCE:


"Unfortunately, a key piece of the minesweeping mission is the development of a new fleet of small, robotic, mine-detecting submarines to scout out the boom-balls and guide their mother ship in to disarm them.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but they can't -- find the mines, that is, or relay the mines' location back to the mother ship. Not with any reliability, at least. In fact, according to an assessment by the Navy's own Directorate of Operational Test and Evaluation, recent tests of Lockheed's fleet of Remote Multi-Mission Vehicles saw the drones break down 14 times over 300 hours of testing, and miss their target of 75 hours' operation between failures by a factor of three."

Can Northrop Grumman Solve the Littoral Combat Ship Problem? -- The Motley Fool

 

[DrainBamage]

But, yet again, you fail to address the very real problems of the LCS and instead resort to simple name calling and propaganda posting. Much like your alter ego.

I'm not addressing the real problems of the LCS program because that isn't something we disagree on. What I'm interested in now is this statement, since you're using it to back up your claim that stealth aspects of the design are useless:

"All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them)

This is a flat out lie. Then you compound it by using the lazy catch-all of the compulsive liar, dismissing facts the prove otherwise as propaganda without even bothering to try to address them. Here is an update from the US Navy on the mission modules you claim have been abandoned: http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SAS-Moton-LCSMM.pdf it notes current focus for MCM and ASW on LCS and the milestones they anticipate in 2017-2019.

Here is from Congressional Research Service in March of 2017: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf

MCM MPs are being fielded in four phases delivering capability to address maritime mines and to replace legacy Avenger class Mine Countermeasures ships and MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters that are nearing the end of service life. The ASW MPs will be delivered in a single phase and provide counter-submarine capability in littoral and deep water envi

Increment 1 of the MCM MP consists of the Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV), towed sonar, and airborne mine detection and neutralization systems. Technical Evaluation (TECHEVAL) was completed in August 2015, aboard USS Independence (LCS 2). The Mission Package met the majority of its sustained area coverage rate test requirements, but significant reliability issues were noted with the RMMV and associated subsystems, which constitute the Remote Minehunting System (RMS). Based on TECHEVAL results, CNO and ASN (RDA) chartered an Independent Review Team to assess the RMS. The review team recommended halting the procurement of the RMMV Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) 2 and recommended pursuing acceleration of other promising near term technologies to accomplish the MCM mission. The Navy will coordinate with all stakeholders, particularly the Fleet, in developing the way ahead for this important capability.

The ASW Mission Package, comprised of a continuously active variable depth sonar (VDS), multi-function towed array (MFTA), and a torpedo defense capability, is in development and preparing for Developmental Testing (DT). The ASW Mission Package completed its initial integration test onboard USS FREEDOM (LCS 1) on September 30, 2014. All primary test objectives were completed successfully. ASW MP testing has been successfully conducted using the Advanced Development Model (ADM) Platform. This platform allowed integration testing of the Continuous Active Sonar and VDS that will be associated with the ASW escort module. The ASW MP is on track to complete DT with IOT&E in late FY 2018.

New Crewing and Operating Plan Announced September 2016 In September 2016, the Navy announced a new plan for crewing and operating the first 28 baseline LCSs. Key elements of the new plan include the following:
- the other 24 LCSs (LCSs 5 through 28) will be divided into six divisions (i.e., groups) of four ships each
- among the three divisions on each coast, one division will focus on MCM, one will focus on ASW, and one will focus on SUW


All this for propaganda! It's all fake according to our compulsive liar who says LCS program has abandoned MCM and ASW missions.

 

[DrainBamage]

Fact: The MCM and ASW packages could go on almost any vessel. The MCM currently doesn't even work. The ASW "package" is almost entirely helicopter born so that is the most effective one because, surprise, the helicopters aren't part of the damned ship!

Fact: They are desperately trying to come up with a mine detection system......THAT WORKS! So far, no joy.

Fact: Of course they are continuing to test the towed array sonar system. Whenever they can actually get one of the LCS's to sea that's pretty much all they do is test things. Duh.

And the backpedaling from the "they have abandoned other missions" begins slowly....

 

[whitehall]

Since every expert acknowledges that the days of the gigantic sea borne armadas are over, little crappy ships seem to be the logical future of the U.S. Navy. Let's hope they get them right.

 

[DrainBamage]

"All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them)

According to US Navy:
- the other 24 LCSs (LCSs 5 through 28) will be divided into six divisions (i.e., groups) of four ships each
- among the three divisions on each coast, one division will focus on MCM, one will focus on ASW, and one will focus on SUW

Portrait of a compulsive liar.

 

[westwall]

But, yet again, you fail to address the very real problems of the LCS and instead resort to simple name calling and propaganda posting. Much like your alter ego.

I'm not addressing the real problems of the LCS program because that isn't something we disagree on. What I'm interested in now is this statement, since you're using it to back up your claim that stealth aspects of the design are useless:

"All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them)

This is a flat out lie. Then you compound it by using the lazy catch-all of the compulsive liar, dismissing facts the prove otherwise as propaganda without even bothering to try to address them. Here is an update from the US Navy on the mission modules you claim have been abandoned: http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SAS-Moton-LCSMM.pdf it notes current focus for MCM and ASW on LCS and the milestones they anticipate in 2017-2019.

Here is from Congressional Research Service in March of 2017: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf

MCM MPs are being fielded in four phases delivering capability to address maritime mines and to replace legacy Avenger class Mine Countermeasures ships and MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters that are nearing the end of service life. The ASW MPs will be delivered in a single phase and provide counter-submarine capability in littoral and deep water envi

Increment 1 of the MCM MP consists of the Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV), towed sonar, and airborne mine detection and neutralization systems. Technical Evaluation (TECHEVAL) was completed in August 2015, aboard USS Independence (LCS 2). The Mission Package met the majority of its sustained area coverage rate test requirements, but significant reliability issues were noted with the RMMV and associated subsystems, which constitute the Remote Minehunting System (RMS). Based on TECHEVAL results, CNO and ASN (RDA) chartered an Independent Review Team to assess the RMS. The review team recommended halting the procurement of the RMMV Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) 2 and recommended pursuing acceleration of other promising near term technologies to accomplish the MCM mission. The Navy will coordinate with all stakeholders, particularly the Fleet, in developing the way ahead for this important capability.

The ASW Mission Package, comprised of a continuously active variable depth sonar (VDS), multi-function towed array (MFTA), and a torpedo defense capability, is in development and preparing for Developmental Testing (DT). The ASW Mission Package completed its initial integration test onboard USS FREEDOM (LCS 1) on September 30, 2014. All primary test objectives were completed successfully. ASW MP testing has been successfully conducted using the Advanced Development Model (ADM) Platform. This platform allowed integration testing of the Continuous Active Sonar and VDS that will be associated with the ASW escort module. The ASW MP is on track to complete DT with IOT&E in late FY 2018.

New Crewing and Operating Plan Announced September 2016 In September 2016, the Navy announced a new plan for crewing and operating the first 28 baseline LCSs. Key elements of the new plan include the following:
- the other 24 LCSs (LCSs 5 through 28) will be divided into six divisions (i.e., groups) of four ships each
- among the three divisions on each coast, one division will focus on MCM, one will focus on ASW, and one will focus on SUW


All this for propaganda! It's all fake according to our compulsive liar who says LCS program has abandoned MCM and ASW missions.

No, it counts as propaganda because the Navy is carrying on as if there is no problem. They are working to address the fact that the MCM currently doesn't work, but work it does not. That is a fact. The LCS was supposed to be able to move mission packages and crew from ship to ship as modules. That is being abandoned as delineated here...BTW jettisons means they aren't doing it any more. I didn't say they were stopping the MCM systems. What I did say is the modular system was a failure, so the ships were going to DEDICATED platforms. Thus you are the liar for misrepresenting what I said. A typical tactic of a buffoon.

PENTAGON: After a series of embarrassing breakdowns, the Navy is overhauling how it operates its controversial Littoral Combat Ships. It’s not only big news for the Navy but a cautionary tale for would-be innovators.

• The first four LCS ships, which were built with R&D funds and which lack bug fixes made to later vessels, will not deploy overseas except in times of crisis. They become dedicated test ships and stay in home waters to try out systems like the evolving anti-submarine and mine-sweeping modules.
• The other two dozen vessels already in service or on contract — LCS-5 through LCS-28 — will be deployed, crewed, and based according to a new scheme that jettisons the ship’s once-highly-touted innovations. Gone are radical concepts such as moving LCS crews and mission modules from ship to ship to ship.
• An additional dozen LCS “frigates” — an upgunned model now in development — will tentatively follow the same system introduced today.

Both deployed LCS variants will follow the same deployment schedule and crew rotation model, but they will be segregated to simplify maintenance and training. The Lockheed Martin Freedom-class LCS will deploy out of Mayport, Fla. and all the Austal Independence-class LCS out of San Diego, Calif.

Navy Sidelines First 4 LCS; Overhauls Deployment, Crewing

 

[westwall]

"All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them)

According to US Navy:
- the other 24 LCSs (LCSs 5 through 28) will be divided into six divisions (i.e., groups) of four ships each
- among the three divisions on each coast, one division will focus on MCM, one will focus on ASW, and one will focus on SUW

Portrait of a compulsive liar.

Yes indeed you are. Thank you for reinforcing what I stated. Originally ALL ships were supposed to be able to do ALL things. In other words a modular system. What I stated was that system had failed and they were transitioning to DEDICATED platforms, as this post shows. Thanks for proving MY point and proving that you're either a pathological liar, or a moron. I'll let you choose which one you are.

 

[eagle1462010]

This is a fitting reference given Westwall's beautiful speech about how homeland security is the job of the COAST GUARD and how that must discount any possibility of a USN ship having a role in it.

"the U.S. Navy proceeded to procure six PHMs, which were highly successful in conducting coastal operations, such as narcotics interdiction and coastal patrol, in the Caribbean basin"

Sheesh imagine that, Navy assets doing homeland security role. Impossible!

Imagine that. Those missions were called Legal Ops. Ever been on one of those deployments. My deployment back in the day was on an LHD.......Not exactly a small ship.

The Role of the U.S. Navy......of which I served 10 years in............Is Power Projection...........Keeping the Sea Lanes Open.......a BLUE WATER NAVY..........We used to joke with the Coast Guard about the Height requirement to join the Coast Guard........6 foot.......so they could walk to shore should they sink........or we simply called them Puddle Jumpers..................

Their MISSION is the PROTECTION of our Coast Lines..............Not that the U.S. Navy can't do this...........but it is the DIRECT MISSION of the COAST GUARD............and YES............They should be the ones manning and being expanded to do this operation.......We are all in the armed forces...........and we all have a role to play...........and that role is DESIGNATED TO THE COAST GUARD...............

The PHM's were absolutely bad ass little boats..............and the personnel assigned loved the dang things back in the day...........Again......FAR CHEAPER and capable patrol boats.............The LCM is a piece of trash for what I already mentioned...........continuing because of POLITICS and not their capabilities...........

My position is unchanged.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

Today's award for making shit up and spouting it as fact goes to Westwall. When you're losing an argument so badly it has become a spectacle... just start calling inconvenient facts "propaganda" and be done with it. Applause. Bonus hilarity is how often you've flailed about inventing mission statements for LCS, and are now forced to discount as propaganda most of the roles in the real one.

And to top it off amidst all your blather you've got your facts wrong as usual, they haven't abandoned the antisubmarine or minesweeping missions for LCS. There will be LCS ships that specialize in ASW, ASUW or MCM instead of switchable mission modules.

On LCS mine hunting, from April 2017: Navy League 2017: USN to employ two more CUSVs for mine-hunting on LCS | Jane's 360
On LCS mine hunting, from May 2017: LCS Mine Countermeasures Package May Be Headed For Single IOT&E For All 4 Increments - USNI News
On LCS sub escort, from Jan 2017: Major LCS Mission Package Decision Nears
On LCS sub escort, from Nov 2016 - Navy pursues lightweight sonar and sensor systems to boost Littoral Combat Ship ASW capabilities

Beginning in Fall 2016, the Navy would start to phase out the 3:2:1 crewing construct and transition to a Blue/Gold model similar to the one used in crewing Ballistic Missile submarines, patrol craft and minesweepers. The LCS crews would also merge, train and rotate with mission module detachment crews, organizing as four-ship divisions of a single warfare area -- either surface warfare (SUW), mine warfare (MCM) or anti-submarine warfare (ASW). The first four LCS ships (LCS 1-4) will become testing ships. Like the training ships, testing ships will be single-crewed and could be deployed as fleet assets if needed on a limited basis


Clearly USN is still awarding contracts and doing testing for LCS in the sub escort and mine sweeping roles, and they have not (as you claim) abandoned the roles. Liar much? So what we have here is WestWall thinking the US Navy plans to hunt mines and submarines in 10 feet of water. Never go full retard folks, it's dangerous.

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?

Yawn. For someone who is big on making claims about the LCS mission statement you sure do spend much effort trying to ignore part of it.

Smarter Security - Page 2
Officials of both services agree that the Navy's role should be to support the Coast Guard, particularly in areas, such as air defense, where the Coast Guard has little or no capability. Navy officials believe that the Navy, while contributing to maritime homeland security operations, should remain primarily focused on deploying naval forces overseas to provide a forward defense against threats to the United States. 21 Why has the Navy decided it now must employ LCS in homeland security? Will the Navy use LCS to augment the Coast Guard for homeland security missions or conduct separate, stand alone missions? The defense department has offered few specifics about envisioned homeland security duties and the number of littoral combat ships needed. 22 One analyst believes that LCS will be used to guard offshore infrastructure, such as oil platforms or underwater fiber-optic cables. 23 Since the mainstays of homeland security duties are mundane and low-technology, using the littoral ships means their expensive warfare mission modules will find little everyday use. Before the Coast Guard could proceed with incorporating improved homeland security and defense capabilities for its two new maritime security ships, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducted two exhaustive reviews. It would seem reasonable that the DHS decision process would be useful in evaluating the LCS's role in homeland security. Further, if the Navy wants to use the LCS in homeland security, its numbers will be affected by the Coast Guard's contribution of at least 33 major ships. Conversely, the analysis that led to the determination that the Navy needs to employ LCS in homeland security may be used by the Coast Guard to see if it needs additional maritime security ships.

So we now mean super expensive MINE SWEEPERS..........instead of the cheaper older design that did the job quite well. Kinda like saying the ship sucks lets change the Mission..............Turn the piece of Junk into a Mine Sweeper.............

Only one place on this planet have we really needed Mine Sweepers........And lately it is not a problem........It is called the Kuwaiti Mine Fields........The currents in this area of the Persian Gulf swirl in BOXES..........Mine Sweepers clear a GRID BOX based on the probable currents in the Grid.....Then call the Box clear..........It is basically the only area of the world that Mine Sweeping is even needed.

The big boys don't use WWII type Magnetic Mines............We use SOSUS and other versions of the same...........I've already posted an example.......These are sophisticated weapons anchored to the ocean floor. And can identify Submarines or ships by sound. One of the Greatest examples of this are the GIUK GAP............A system of underwater detection systems with Acusitic Mines.............which will fire a Missile up your ass if activated.........

The other area in regards to Anti Mine Warfare.................DEGAUSSING........Making the ship as Magnetically invisible as possible........

Again............the only area using ancient mines is still the Persian Gulf and Magnetic Mines are OBSOLETE to Modern Militaries.

 

[eagle1462010]

U.S. military enters new generation of sea mine warfare



It was this back in the day.....

 

[DrainBamage]

Yes indeed you are. Thank you for reinforcing what I stated. Originally ALL ships were supposed to be able to do ALL things. In other words a modular system. What I stated was that system had failed and they were transitioning to DEDICATED platforms, as this post shows. Thanks for proving MY point and proving that you're either a pathological liar, or a moron. I'll let you choose which one you are.

Yep, the classic pattern of WestWall that we've seen over and over in this forum.

Makes up something stupid when cornered in an argument, then what caught in the lie starts desperately googling and trying to spin his way out of it. Let's review:

"All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them)

It has since been proven that the Navy has NOT abandoned the other missions for LCS, and the LCS ships are indeed being tasked to work the MCM and ASW missions. What Westwall stated was false, he made it up because he is a compulsive liar who gets caught doing it all the time on these forums, he can't help himself.

 

[DrainBamage]

No, it counts as propaganda because the Navy is carrying on as if there is no problem.

Well you've made a nice little niche definition for propaganda.

You said they had abandoned all other missions, and you said it to back up your equally stupid argument that LCS was only designed to work in 10 feet of water.

The fact that the Navy has not abandoned the MCM and ASW missions is not propaganda, you just call it that because you were caught making up bullshit as usual. You're like the pinocchio of USMB, except at this point we could use your nose to build a space elevator.

nd based according to a new scheme that jettisons the ship’s once-highly-touted innovations. Gone are radical concepts such as moving LCS crews and mission modules from ship to ship to ship.

That's right, they are not abandoning all other missions as you claimed and are now desperately trying to spin your way out of.

You lie, you get caught. Repeat dozens of timees.

 

[westwall]

Yes indeed you are. Thank you for reinforcing what I stated. Originally ALL ships were supposed to be able to do ALL things. In other words a modular system. What I stated was that system had failed and they were transitioning to DEDICATED platforms, as this post shows. Thanks for proving MY point and proving that you're either a pathological liar, or a moron. I'll let you choose which one you are.

Yep, the classic pattern of WestWall that we've seen over and over in this forum.

Makes up something stupid when cornered in an argument, then what caught in the lie starts desperately googling and trying to spin his way out of it. Let's review:

"All of the other missions (now abandoned as the ship simply can't do them)

It has since been proven that the Navy has NOT abandoned the other missions for LCS, and the LCS ships are indeed being tasked to work the MCM and ASW missions. What Westwall stated was false, he made it up because he is a compulsive liar who gets caught doing it all the time on these forums, he can't help himself.

Indeed. The ACCURATE westwall that we all have grown to know and love. Unlike the lying drain who will cherry pick a single sentence to attempt to have me say something i didn't. I never claimed that they were abandoning missions as you accuse me of doing. What I did claim, and which you kindly proved for me, is they have abandoned the modular idea of running the ships. That's all I claimed, well that and the MCM package doesn't work at all it seems.

YOU made the rest of your BS up out of whole cloth proving yet again that when you have nothing useful to say, you lie.

 

[bodecea]

I'm not sure why we are building more ships anyway. The military says they don't need them, but the republican congress told them they had to build more ships, tanks, and planes that are not needed.

Pork.
That's why Byrd was so popular in West Virginia.