Little Crappy Ship

[bodecea]

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.

Air Superiority. End of discussion.

 

[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.

Air Superiority. End of discussion.

Which is my point, end of discussion.

 

[DrainBamage]

Indeed. The ACCURATE westwall that we all have grown to know and love.

Called out dozens and dozens of times on these forums for spouting bullshit. MCM having problems in development is not the same as USN abandoning the mission. You lied. A sad old man with a massive ego problem who gets caught lying again and again.

And you're stuck, because you used abandoning other missions to support your argument that stealth is useless. So I guess we're back to Westwall thinking the US Navy will hunt for subs and mines in 10 feet of water. Never go full retard.

 

[Manonthestreet]

GAbbie gets her Crappy ship.....fitting name for a piece of junk.
Warship named for former Rep. Giffords to be commissioned in Galveston

 

[Manonthestreet]

The Navy “may not” deploy any of the dozen small surface combatants this year despite officials’ previous plans to deploy several to join the 7th and 5th Fleets in Singapore and Bahrain respectively, the US Naval Institute reported. The report suggests that the Navy has run out of patience for the disappointment mill that is the Littoral Combat Ship, once the backbone of the future fleet that could have 355 ships. The US Navy basically admitted that the Littoral Combat Ship looks like a massive failure

 

[eagle1462010]

The Navy “may not” deploy any of the dozen small surface combatants this year despite officials’ previous plans to deploy several to join the 7th and 5th Fleets in Singapore and Bahrain respectively, the US Naval Institute reported. The report suggests that the Navy has run out of patience for the disappointment mill that is the Littoral Combat Ship, once the backbone of the future fleet that could have 355 ships. The US Navy basically admitted that the Littoral Combat Ship looks like a massive failure

Aluminum hull..............built at Austals.............I could have saved them the trouble early on.

LOL...........Wasted money............I agree with a comment from that site you posted. Give them to the Coast Guard.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Can we cancel the rest please before more money is wasted

 

[Manonthestreet]

It's Official: The U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Is a Complete Failure

 

[OldLady]

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.

They don't make things like they used to.

It does put me in mind of what my father always told me when I was trading cars. Get something simple that's been around for years. The new technologies are always full of bugs.

 

[Manonthestreet]

The Navy Now Wants To Retire The First Four Of Its Troublesome Littoral Combat Ships
So bad Navy will start dumping em... .you will same with F-35 early mods......waste on a scale only govt is capable of it

 

[westwall]

So. Looks like I was correct eh DrainBamage

 

[DrainBamage]

So. Looks like I was correct eh DrainBamage

Refresh my memory.

I think you're the guy who said they could just put bigger wings on a Harrier and it would be as good as an F-35B, you mean about that?

 

[westwall]

So. Looks like I was correct eh DrainBamage

Refresh my memory.

I think you're the guy who said they could just put bigger wings on a Harrier and it would be as good as an F-35B, you mean about that?

Try reading the thread. You liked the POS and defended them, and I pointed out they were crap.

Nice attempt at deflection though. Seems I know more than you do.

Go figure.

 

[DrainBamage]

I'm not rereading this entire thread.

Since your main point was to crow and brag let's clarify, you were that harrier guy though right? Just add bigger wings, stealth has no use, supersonic speed has no use, more range has no use, just bigger wings and buy some cameras from Radioshack to match the sensors and it's better than F-35B? Was that you?

If you were then yeah you're definitely an expert in these parts.

 

[westwall]

I'm not rereading this entire thread.

Since your main point was to crow and brag let's clarify, you were that harrier guy though right? Just add bigger wings, stealth has no use, supersonic speed has no use, just bigger wings and buy some cameras from Radioshack to match the sensors and it's better than F-35B? Was that you?

If you were then yeah you're definitely an expert in these parts.

Yeah, I am the harrier guy. And in this thread you weren't just wrong. But catastrophically wrong. It's just the Navy figured it out sooner than you did. Or apparently ever will. As far as the Harrier goes, my point was that the F-35 will never be as good a close air support aircraft as a dedicated one would be. I have been proven correct on that score too. I am not against the F-35, i just think it is far too costly for what we are getting.

 

[DrainBamage]

Yeah, I am the harrier guy.

Okay just wanted to make sure who I was talking to. You're the harrier guy.

And in this thread you weren't just wrong. But catastrophically wrong. It's just the Navy figured it out sooner than you did.

I don't even remember dude, just showing up and saying "nenner I know more" doesn't give enough context.

As far as the Harrier goes, my point was that the F-35 will never be as good a close air support aircraft as a dedicated one would be. I have been proven correct on that score too. I am not against the F-35, i just think it is far too costly for what we are getting.

No, I'm pretty sure you said the harrier would be a better aircraft than F-35B, and were dismissing things like stealth as just a gimmick. It's interesting watching you recast it though.

 

[westwall]

Yeah, I am the harrier guy.

Okay just wanted to make sure who I was talking to. You're the harrier guy.

And in this thread you weren't just wrong. But catastrophically wrong. It's just the Navy figured it out sooner than you did.

I don't even remember dude, just showing up and saying "nenner I know more" doesn't give enough context.

As far as the Harrier goes, my point was that the F-35 will never be as good a close air support aircraft as a dedicated one would be. I have been proven correct on that score too. I am not against the F-35, i just think it is far too costly for what we are getting.

No, I'm pretty sure you said the harrier would be a better aircraft than F-35B, and were dismissing things like stealth as just a gimmick. It's interesting watching you recast it though.

No, I just said that for the price of one F-35 you could have 3 Harriers (at the cost estimates back then), and in the CAS role more is better. But I have a better memory than you do. Clearly.

 

[22lcidw]

There has to be regions those ships can deploy. For the cost we have to get something out of them. We spend a lot on defense. It is not to much to ask for the best we can get at the inflated prices we pay.

 

[Likkmee]

T

What is the modern definition of a "combat ship"? Are all the fat asses in the Pentagon still under the delusion of an ocean going war in the age of drones? The last time I saw U.S. Navy sailors in combat they were crying as they were kidnapped by terrorists from a freaking country that doesn't even have a navy.

I think you greatly demean the contributions of the Navy in the Middle East.

Naval ships serve as a mobile launching pad for air and missile weapons. As long as they can do that, they will continue to be a threat, and continue to be threatened.

What are the "contributions of the Navy in the Middle East"? Bill Clinton threw a couple of million dollar missiles at old training sites but Barry Hussein decided that the Navy was not capable of rescuing the defenders of the Benghazi Alamo. What is the U.S. Navy mission these days?

deliver mine detectors(marines) so the army K9 dont get hurt going in

 

[westwall]

There has to be regions those ships can deploy. For the cost we have to get something out of them. We spend a lot on defense. It is not to much to ask for the best we can get at the inflated prices we pay.

They constantly break down, and they provide no useful service that any other ship can provide.