Littoral Combat Ship

File: 67b[1].jpg (71KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x450px

>Shittoral Combat Ship

>>31757890
They were designed to fight lots of little small boats close to shore. Time will tell if they are capable of it.

>>31757978

>They were designed to fight lots of little small boats close to shore. Time will tell if they are capable of it.

You can do that with a cyclone, or any patrol vessel.

>>31757890
Redistribution of wealth from the tax payers to contractors and their union workers.

File: 160707-N-MW990-035.jpg (1MB, 4247x2784px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4247x2784px

>Real-talk now

Also known as concern trolling.

>what are these ships actually for?

Anti-submarine, mine clearing, surface combat, irregular warfare.

>The Navy has admitted that they are not survivable enough to actually be used as a combat asset.

No, they haven't.

>They are fragile and they lack any air defense other than 1 close-range missile launcher.

The USN doesn't need them to have heavy air defenses.

>They don't have any anti-ship missiles other than hell-fires, which are frankly useless for the distances you'd see in a real naval engagement.

And Harpoons, and NSM, and LRASM when those enter service.

>Their only redeeming feature seems to be their aviation facilities.

They do have superb aviation facilities for a ship their size, but that is not their only redeeming feature.

>>31759499
op btfo so hard he's already abandoned. thanks based anon. wait for him to make a gford thread like an utter autist

>>31759527
I had thought they already moved on to the Ford, but there has been several LCS threads recently.

>>31757890
>littoral combat ship
>litoral
>literal
>literal combat shit
>literally a combat ship
God I love burgers.

>>31757890

I never quite understood the Clittotal Combat Ship concept.

Where are they envisioned of being deployed? Operating on their own around the coasts of failed states in Africa? Are they capable of operating so far from bases?

Are they supposed to operate with larger surface vessels?

This just looks like a corporate welfare program.

>>31759885

>i don't understand a really simple concept that could be easy found with 5 secs and google
> so lets make some completely retarded conclusion on my own

As global police America has to monitor your coast in case you attack their blockade. America has the right to defend itself.

File: Success Breeds Jealousy.jpg (890KB, 1920x1650px) Image search: [Google]

890KB, 1920x1650px

They're for sucking up tax payer funds

>>31760235
>copying from wikipedia without factchecking

>>31757890
Doing the Coast Guard's work on other people's coasts.

>>31757890
They're for those times when a patrol boat isn't quite enough, but something like an OHP is too much. The AVDET capability is probably what seals the deal.

The LCS isn't intended to integrate into a CSG. It's designed to putz around close inshore and deal with shit like pirate swarms and the like. It's not designed to get into a slugging match with peer naval or aviation forces.

>>31761589

So in other words, it's an Offshore Patrol Vessel or OPV.

>>31761589
>Doesn't do frigate or patrol boat stuff
>Costs more than both of them combined
hmm

>>31761589

>They're for those times when a patrol boat isn't quite enough, but something like an OHP is too much.

Why do people pretend like the OHP was some kind of heavily armed vessel? The OHP had even less air defense than the LCS (so basically none whatsoever) and other than that, all they really had was a 76 mm gun. Good enough to do its job but not much else.

>>31759885
>What is a littoral combat ship for?
Combat.
In the littoral zone.
Obviously.

>>31757890


Wait...

We can buy these for 500k?! Each!?

Holy crap. Why haven't the burgers dominated the world yet?

True value of LCS is not the ship itself but operating various unmanned stuff(UAV, USV etc) for various purposes, enhancing its combat survivability.