LCS incapable of doing its job

>>32188136
All together now: It's only taxpayer dollars.

why is it so hard to build what is essentially a torpedo boat destroyer?

>>32188136

I just read that story as well. Fucking hell, man. This is embarrassing.

>>32188214

I blame the fact that they decided that it HAD to go 45 knots while also having a minimalist crew. The high speed requirement requires the use of a more complicated propulsion system, and the smaller crew size means that the maintenance personnel is overworked. Put those two factors together and you have a mess.

The high speed requirement also requires the use of lots of lightweight materials, which is why they get damaged so easily. Reducing the speed requirement to something like 35 knots during the design phase would have allowed for a simpler propulsion system and a beefier hull while still having a pretty fast ship.

>>32188389
isn't the main problem just teething issues and the whole completely integrated system thing? afaik the f-35 suffers from the same thing (the plane works with only a few minor physical issues, but integrating the software with everything is a problem)

>>32188416

No, the F-35 suffered mainly from software issues which have mostly been resolved now. The LCS is a fundamentally flawed vessel that can only be fixed with a significant redesign. There is simply not reason why any class of modern naval vessel should break down so much. The need for a 45-knot vessel was never clearly articulated, it was just put in the requirements list because it sounded good. But of course, when you put such a focus on having a high top speed, the entire vessel needs to be designed around that. The hull, the propulsion system, everything.

too many fucking consultants with absolutely no stakes in the project, wasting taxpayer money, and purposely underbudgeting, to keep getting contracts

>>32188448
yeah but haven't we had extremely unreliable ships for 100+ years now? i remember reading some caption about the USS Enterprise having a reactor shutdown over some sand, and i know the catapult system on nimitz class carriers are notoriously unreliable.

what's exactly wrong with the lcs? i'm not very knowledgeable on ships.

>>32188136
Curse my filthy mind. I always read it as clitoral combat ship.

>>32188214
so a normal regular destroyer, and not the cruisers they call destroyers today?

>>32188530
They tried to get three missions out of one ship by using interchangeable mission modules, each module having its own dedicated crew. As it turned out there were insurmountable technical issues, and changing out part of the crew every few months killed morale and crew cohesion.

>>32188530
>i remember reading some caption about the USS Enterprise having a reactor shutdown over some sand,
Literally no nuclear carrier could have survived that. The real flaw was the pinheads in the Pentagon insisting they steam out when the tide was too low for the keel to clear the bottom, so the coolant intakes ate a sandbar.

>>32189391
wait hold up, so do the individual specialized crews switch out (IE captain stays, all personnel who deal with shit common across all ships) or are there specific separate crews that just rotate through different ships?

how is that supposed to work? there's something like 5 ships in total working right now iirc, what happens if for some reason ALL ships need to suddenly be doing ASW? do surface warfare specialized crews just sit around on shore fucking each other?

how long does it take to switch the modules out? what happens if ASW is needed urgently, but by the time the modules are in that need is gone?

furthermore, isn't this putting MASSIVE stress on not just the navy's budget, crews and so on, but the actual ship's structure itself? i can't imagine the modules are simple slide in and bolt down things, they'd have to be attached to the thing using heavy duty methods. in that case, won't repeated interchanges start causing micro-fractures in the ship's structure over time?

why even do this? the US navy is so large they have ships dedicated solely to landing marines on the beaches of random nations (and 10+ carriers for that matter) but they can't make multiple classes of ships to do this?

>>32189478
must have been tired when i read it, i thought the problem was sand being kicked up and going into the intakes (not the ship running into a sandbar) leading to a faulty reactor design breaking.

File: USCG_National_Security_Cutter_BERTHOLF_(WMSL-750).jpg (52KB, 800x475px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 800x475px

>>32188136
>tfw the LCS is superior to the current Legend-class cutters in literally every single metric including the comically inflated price
Why is nobody bringing up this fucking travesty of a shitboat? How did it ever get funded?

>>32188530

>yeah but haven't we had extremely unreliable ships for 100+ years now?

In the past ships were much cheaper so if you had a dud here and there it wasn't as big of a deal unless you were talking about something huge like a battleship.

>>32189500
>why even do this?
It was the only way they could get the penny pinching retards in Congress to approve it at the time.

>washingtonexaminer

>>32189535

>How did it ever get funded?

9/11. The Coast Guard is considered to be part of Homeland Security so they got a huge funding boost under the Patriot Act.

>>32189500
>ait hold up, so do the individual specialized crews switch out (IE captain stays, all personnel who deal with shit common across all ships)
I believe that's the gist of it.

>what happens if for some reason ALL ships need to suddenly be doing ASW?
>why even do this? the US navy is so large they have ships dedicated solely to landing marines on the beaches of random nations (and 10+ carriers for that matter) but they can't make multiple classes of ships to do this?
It's supposed to be putty that squidges in to fill specific gaps in a larger taskforce in fleet usage, so would be additional to everything else or covering for a specific role known to be lacking ahead of time, or at least that's the only way I can look at it and get any sense. It's also supposed to be super duper good at working closer to shore (hence the name) than typical warships, although really the only things it might be doing there are mine clearance or coastguard work, so whilst it can do those missions (notionally) it's woefully over specced and priced for them, because neither requires anything close to most of the stuff LCS is intended to do.

>i thought the problem was sand being kicked up and going into the intakes (not the ship running into a sandbar) leading to a faulty reactor design breaking.
Well the reactor layout on the Enterprise was certainly interesting as well, but as other anon pointed out that days fuckup was a combination result of her being ordered to sea when unfit to sail (her diesel backup generators were known to be unusable due to unfinished work before she put out) and in somewhat less than ideal conditions.

>>32189694
>woefully over specced and priced for coast guard work
May I direct you to >>32189535?

>>32188556
yeah it had a pretty huge booty and a wide spread between cheeks.
but it really looked like shit so it's not a big loss that it failed.

>China builds 40-60 more capable Type 056 Corvettes in 4 years.

>>32189535
that actually looks like a decent boat in specs and armament.
if they made more i'm sure the unit price would be more reasonable.

>>32189716
I actually don't see the design specs being too insane for that, ok 2 choppers is a bit of largesse and it could surely have done it's job without quite so much dakka as it has in the main gun, but other than that the specs seem reasonable, especially since most of the shit is borrowed from elsewhere so there doesn't seem to be have been loads of bespoke systems to be designed. The program management being a bit of a clusterfuck isn't really the boats fault, but then again nor is it really anything new either.

>>32188136
That ship is littoral garbage.

>>32189879

>2 choppers is a bit of largesse

Why is two helicopters excessive? The perry frigates were able to manage two helicopters. Their replacement should be able to do the same.

>>32189835

LCS could probably BTFO all of them

Its "incapable of performing most basic missions" because those missions are super hardcore the bar was set so high

Its still light years better than chinese or slav shit

>>32189879
>2 choppers is a bit of largesse and it could surely have done it's job without quite so much dakka as it has in the main gun
Two choppers makes it enormously more useful for ASW, AShW, SAR, and basically everything else the ship is supposed to do. If the V-280 gets bought by the Navy you can get tilt-rotor range out of the choppers, at which point the LCS becomes a great support platform for SEALs or a small Marine landing party.

>>32190095

For some of these activities, have twice as many choppers literally doubles mission effectiveness. If you're looking for a submarine, then having double the helicopters means that you can search an area twice as fast.

>>32189852
Sure, except that its specs and armament are similar to the LCS except for being slower, requiring double the crew, not being as heavily armed (not that weaponry is a big deal for a ship designed to sink amphibious Volkswagens), and they were developed in parallel with another ship that performs the same role, meaning all R&D costs associated with the NSC platform are essentially wasted. They should have just pooled that money into the LCS program instead.

>>32188136
Well, that's just wrong. Its only job is to assimilate funds and it does it perfectly.

>>32188389
there were 45 knot destroyers before ww2

File: 205936yddsfhfdgx5mhor2.jpg (613KB, 2020x1226px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 2020x1226px

>>32190064
Cool story bro.

https://warisboring.com/how-i-lost-the-battle-of-the-south-china-sea-c47b367a1de2#.o9x0mzrl9

tldr;

>056's guns outranges the LCS
>056's has AShMs
>056's is more durable than the LCS
>LCS stealth and speed is a meme that wont give it any edge in battle.
>One 056 beats two LCS with minimum damage

File: 1478713595204.png (2MB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1680x1050px

>>32190438
>Warisboring

File: ZrD8D7m.jpg (326KB, 1600x1011px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1600x1011px

>>32190459
Still true.

056 might be slower and has worse "stealth" (which is a meme for navy vessels), but is better armed and much cheaper.

>>32190489
>'stealth', which is a meme for Navy vessels.

Hooooooboy. Ok, go ahead and explain that one to me. Why is low RCS a meme for ships?

>>32190236
I suspect a lot of LCS haters don't understand just how much of the job of Navy surface combatants is getting helicopters in the right place.

>>32190438
>One simulation
>CIWS on the LCS is destroyed almost immediately
And I've destroyed a Stormraven with one shot from a Lascannon. Randomness will be random, something isn't trash just because things didn't go right the first time. What if the very first shot from the LCS hit the chink ship's bridge square on? Would that mean that the LCS is the best ship ever created?

>>32190598
It would seem that choppers are the unsung heroes of naval aviation.
Small boats? Choppers. Subs? Choppers. Amphibious landing? Choppers. Surface srarch? Choppers.

>>32190598
I'm pretty sure most of the LCS and Zumwalt haters just want guided missile battleships with 300+ launch tubes and maybe a couple of aircraft carriers to make up the entire US Navy.

>>32190598
As far as the LCS is concerned, it is in some ways deficient in terms of its flight facilities. It can carry one SH-60 and a firescout uav. The old OHP frigates could carry two SH-60s, so I can understand why some might see this as a downgrade.

>>32190655
This applies to both LCS variants? I was sure the trimaran could carry two SH-60s due to that big fat flight deck and hangar.

File: 1468775119493.jpg (47KB, 600x677px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x677px

>>32188136
You're incapable of your job but you don't see me making threads about how you're unable to kill yourself.

Don't know much about the Navy but I assume this is highly relevant to what happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

>>32190655

Are you sure? I thought both Freedom and Independence could manage 2 seahawks?

>>32190668
>>32190753
One Sea Hawk, two Fire Scouts, all at the same time. Sea Hawks are stupid big.

>>32190784
Oh neat, Fire Scouts are badass.
>cheaper than a manned helicopter
>no personnel put in harm's way
>they run Linux because the Navy got tired of Microsoft's shit in the 90s after an NT4 "smart ship" BSoD'd so hard it had to get towed back to port
https://gcn.com/articles/1998/07/13/software-glitches-leave-navy-smart-ship-dead-in-the-water.aspx

>>32190655
What is SSC due to look like on its rear half?

Also , I don't think most fully appreciate MQ-8's advantages over Seahawk. AN/ZPY-4 is seriously scary stuff.

>>32190864
>Also , I don't think most fully appreciate MQ-8's advantages over Seahawk.
The fact that it's not as long as a swimming pool is all the advantage it needs.

>>32190929
And that, despite not being fucking enormous like Seahawk, it's radar is pretty much equivalent.

>>32190942
Fire Scout will also readily mollywhop small boats with Hellfire, Viper Strike, and APKWS II.

>>32188556
haha you are hilarious
(^_−)
seriously you are one funny man. keep posting, don't let anyone tell you you are a faggot.

>>32189500
It was a stupid idea to save money by "hot-bunking" entire detachments.

The idea was to leave the ship forward-deployed, and swap crews and modules out in friendly harbors.

See also: Sea Swap.

The idea has merit, in theory... see the Blue/Gold crews on boomers. However, with a small, undermanned (again, to lower operating expenses, of which the greatest is men) crew, on top of all of the terrible requirements decisions (e.g., 40kts threshold/50+ objective) that were made before LCS was even designed, it was pretty much doomed to failure.

>>32189879
2 is 1 and 1 is none when it really matters.

So, yeah, I don't begrudge the extra hangar space.

>>32190489
>yfw they even blatantly copy the RAM launcher