What exactly are these ships meant to do?

>>32321484
Efficiently kill brown people who lack the ability to retaliate and launch boats, minisubs and Helos full of Specops to efficiently kill brown people who have no ability to retaliate.

>>32321484
They're canal queens

>>32321484
Stimulate the litorus

>>32321484
Drain money

>>32321484
Be the fugliest ship in any navy ever. I know function comes before form but holy shit

>>32321484
Combat litorally.

File: carrier.bomber.a5v.jpg (77KB, 736x560px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 736x560px

Its the U.S. version of the FREMM, or MEKO theory of building the smallest warship in a fleet to have multiple possible uses (minesweeping, patrol, landing, swimming up a canal, etc.)

But in practice, its just a way for contractors to run up a bill.

>>32321484
Littorally literal combat

>>32321842

Except the Navy has now gone on record saying that they will not be used for this role anymore siting that they are too expensive and not well equipped to risk in the original role. They even changed the designation their designation to Frigates. They will be used as a specialty utility ships, configured in whatever way whatever taskfoce they are assigned too needs, such as minesweeper, ASW, ELINT, SEAL support etc.

>>32321484
Cost a lot and require lots of maintenance and spare parts so that whoever makes them can make piles of money so that our government can point at them and say "SEE, SEE, THE ECONOMY HAS RECOVERED, THAT GUY IS RICH AS FUCK!!!!"

>>32322054
Everything you just posted was incorrect.

>Except the Navy has now gone on record...
The Navy has gone on record saying that they probably won't use them completely by themselves in sight of the shore, but that's okay. They're moreso platforms from which other entities do the work. Now, originally the Navy thought it was a good idea to have individual LCSs be able to switch between mission modules (more on that later) on the fly, with a core crew and several different module crews that would jump on whatever ship needed that module. That somewhat idiotic idea was dropped, and now LCSs are going to pretty much remain able to do only one mission module. However, it should be noted that even with this as the case, the Navy could still switch out mission modules if required. While it would not be as quick as projected, it could still be done in a very short period of time.

>They even changed the designation their designation to Frigates.
Incorrect. 12 LCSs will remain LCSs. However, people complained that the LCSs weren't armed heavily enough. Some of them were politicians. As a result, the Navy is upgrading the designs of most (but not all) planned LCSs that have yet to even be purchased, let alone laid down, to be frigates. No, this will not be the biggest change in the world. I'll explain further in a moment.

>They will be used as a specialty utility ships...
Sort of. Look at what I said about mission modules earlier. The LCS is currently based around three mission modules: MCM (Mine CounterMeasures [minesweeping]), SUW (Surface Warfare [anti fast boat swarms]), and ASW. They will perform these tasks as required. What exactly the Frigate versions do is yet to be determined, however their intent is to put both ASW and SUW capabilities in one hull.

This is what the Navy wanted. Cheap ships that could do these tasks, be relatively capable against fast boats should they threaten them. USN needs cheaper ships to preserve economy of force. That's the LCS.

>>32322112
Semi-correct, actually. That's surprising, because normally this sort of spiel is absolute bullshit. In the case of the LCS, the reason why there are two separate classes of ships produced by two different manufacturers is for two reasons.

1- Ensure the designers of these classes have experience designing and building military vessels. They now know how the process works, as well as the troubles in making them. You see the problems the LCSs and Zumwalts are currently having? This is what happens when you don't design a warship in thirty years. Or ever, in Austal's case.

2- Preserve the skilled labor force. As I'm sure you had absolutely no clue, one of the biggest strategic problems facing this country is a lack of skilled workers in military shipbuilding yards. This is in large part due to the fact that after the massive boom in shipbuilding during the Reagan years, shipbuilding died off for about twenty years. Many of the workers were laid off, now that the shipyards had no need of them or their expensive talents. This happens every time a shipyard completes its contract. They start laying people off, starting with people whose jobs are done first. Thus, even before the last ship has even hit the water, layoffs of staff who have already completed their portion of the work. Once those skilled workers are laid off, what do you expect them to do? Sit on their hands and wait another five, ten, twenty years for the next government contract? Or are they going to find work elsewhere, likely never to return to the naval shipyards? Sadly, history has proven the latter.

So while yes, elements of the LCS program are undoubtedly there specifically to preserve the industrial base, that is not actually a bad thing. The US is far from what it was able to achieve in WW2. So many shipyards have closed down. So many more have stopped having a military side altogether. In order to regain some of and preserve those capabilities, the LCS program is as it is.

>>32322252
You know, I wonder if some of this same logic doesn't apply to aircraft as well. It explains a lot about how overbudget and delayed THOSE programs tend to be nowadays when you consider how rare a full development program is compared to how things were in the pre-'Nam era.

they are literal combat ships you moron

>>32322363
It does indeed apply to an extent, but not in the way that you're thinking. For example, the delays and cost overruns in the F-35 program were not because Lockheed needed to be helped in any way. Instead, let's take a look elsewhere. At the moment, there are three large aircraft procurement programs going on in the Air Force. The F-35 program, the KC-46 program, and the LRSB program. In order to get a good understanding, let's look at the LRSB contract.

The program came down to two offerings. The first was a cooperation between Lockheed and Boeing. The second was based around Northrop Grumman. The LRSB program is a massive program which is going to extend for many decades to come. Whoever won the contract is going to be fairly secure (when in addition to everything else they do). However, let's take a look at the industrial bases. Lockheed is producing the F-35. Its industrial base is absolutely secure. Boeing's military side is not in the best condition. With the F/A-18 line coming to a close, the factory in St Louis which produces them will soon be out of work. An out of work factory doesn't tend to stay open for very long, and the skilled workers in it tend to stay for even less time. However, Boeing does actually have one of the Big 3 programs- the KC-46. That will also be in place for decades. Further, with properly timed Hornet buys (which the Navy is actually doing right now), the factory might be kept open for another five to twenty years. However, without the LRSB contract, Boeing's military aviation aspect, while there, is in a very strenuous position.

Continued (1/2?)

>>32322363
>>32322446
But they aren't in the worst place. That belongs to Northrop Grumman. They didn't have ANY aircraft procurement programs at all. Sure, they contributed a lot to other programs, but the infrastructure which they had from building the heavily curtailed B-2 (the cessation of the program was honestly one of America's greatest strategic failings) and preparing the YF-23 were at their last legs. If the LRSB contract were not awarded to Northrop, they likely would lose their capability to aircraft entirely.

That is in no one's interests. In the case of American national interests, it removes not only a manufacturing facility and its personnel (some of which would move to other domestic companies, some of which would be lost for good), but it essentially leaves only two companies with the ability to produce military aircraft: Lockheed and Boeing. With Boeing being on its last legs, the military side might very well vanish in the next two to four decades even with the LRSB buy. That would leave only a single company in the US capable of producing top of the line aircraft. Lockheed would have a monopoly. I'm sure I don't need to tell you why that would be bad.

Using this logic, the choice of which offering the government would chose was almost predetermined. It didn't hurt that Northrop had also produced another stealth bomber and knew exactly how to do it. With all that in mind, I made a killing off of Northrop Grumman stocks!

But yes, to answer your question, in this era of budget uncertainty and government unwillingness to carry through with their programs, the nation's military industrial base has been in a real bind in many areas.

(2/2)

>>32321484
guns is just as good as butter

these are part of obama's economic stimulus as a make-work project to help the ailing economies where these shipyards are located

its only pork when its not your district.

Keep the manufacturers well supplied in champagne and truffles.

>>32321484
Worldwide capable show of flag and light patrol on the cheap-ish, and auxilliary missions like mine warfare. It should have been named Global Auxilliary Ship, or something like that, and nobody would have any problem with it.

Act as bait for Chinese corvettes in the SCS

>>32322483
Technically speaking, there would be a problem. Congress and many people would speak out against it. "Why do we need so many ships that can't even fight?" For example, Congress was never going to fund minesweeping to the extent it needed to be. However, because the LCS program convinced them to, they have FINALLY invested in replacing rust buckets that are on their last legs. Because Congress sees the "Combat" and goes "Ooooh, shiny". Note how much they are focused on making frigates now. They don't want auxiliaries. They don't sound nearly as good. They want warships, regardless of whether or not that is the right choice.

So is it a bad name? It's not exactly the most descriptive of what it was going to do, but it's not exactly a bad name either, and even if it was wholly inaccurate, the name achieved its purpose.

>>32321559
/thread

>>32321484
>What exactly are these ships meant to do?

Repair contracts, my good friend. The militarry doesn't repair their shit any more.

File: aaok.jpg (66KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 450x600px

>>32322137
>>32322252
>>32322446
>>32322453
Great posts m8.

>>32321484
So in shorthand:
>Sweep for mines
>Patrol
>Rape small boats, assist with ASW
>Improve husbandry for bigger ships.

Anything we missed?

>>32321484

Helicopter carrier.

>>32322499

>Because Congress sees the "Combat" and goes "Ooooh, shiny". Note how much they are focused on making frigates now. They don't want auxiliaries. They don't sound nearly as good. They want warships, regardless of whether or not that is the right choice.

Is this why we're getting BB fags jumping around screaming "Pick me! Pick me! I'm a warship damn it, PICK ME!"

>>32321514
>(c)anal queens

>>32322453
NG is getting the new ICBM program

>>32324886
(lit)orally challenged (c)anal queens

sounds about right

>>32321514
>>32324886
USS Iori Minase when?

File: F35 damaged.jpg (22KB, 680x385px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 680x385px

>>32321484
Enrich Lockheed.

>>32321484
It semi-submerges.
Which of I understood means it's water resistant but not proof.

>>32324956
I thought that that had yet to be awarded.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (76KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1920x1080px

>>32321559
Oh fug

>>32321484
what ships?

>>32321484
>What exactly are these ships meant to do?- 36 posts and 4 image replies shown.
Dislodge money from taxpayers.

>>32321484
Feed the MIC

>>32322421
Littoral Combat Ships which, of course, makes them LITERAL COMBAT SHIPS you fucking asshat.

>>32321484

Break down a lot so we can make the next class of ships better from the beginning.

Go out to sea for a day, then break.

>>32321484

Befuddle me with their odd shape

And possibly the enemy

File: the names bond. james bond.jpg (175KB, 1600x1092px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1600x1092px

>>32321484
for spooky things

>>32321484

Do FF shit

I think they should have axed the multi-mission shit and just crammed it all in, or used the 2 separate vessels for 2 different tasks; one an anti-sub FF and one an anti-gunboat FF

>>32324374
At least someone appreciates the effort.

>>32321484
Make money for the contractor building them.

>>32321484
These are meant to assimilate funds.

>>32332881
I fail to see how this is a bad thing.