Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: A smarter move from the USN: buy both LCS designs.
doggtag    11/4/2010 9:02:25 AM
I can actually say I'm impressed by this decision: U.S. Navy To Build Both LCS Designs ( http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4997894&c=AME&s=SEA ) It not only helps strengthen an ailing US economy, it also could encourage some, hopefully civil, competition between the competitors: competing to build more efficiently and within proper timeframes and budgets. A new era of dual-buying in US defense contracts, while certainly costing more money overall in the long run, could bring a lot of much-needed, decent-paying higher-technology manufacturing back into the US job industry: contractors, subcontractors, design and engineering, service and support contracts: that's how you create jobs and strengthen an economy. Jobs that create a lieable, decent wage that enables families to properly buy and afford homes, spend more money buying consumer goods, and those kinds of higher-paying jobs also mean a more ideal tax revenue (important for getting national debt under control) coming from those income brackets. Long term, it can be a win-win for a hell of a lot of people.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
doggtag    and more....   11/4/2010 9:08:15 AM

Found some further articles, conveniently grouped together, by the crew over at Defense-Aerospace.Com:
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    and more yet....   11/5/2010 9:32:40 AM
 
...closely noticing that this is still a USN decision that is not a guaranteed, etched-in-stone solution:
 
" Consideration of this option is separate from the ongoing LCS down select process, and if congressional approval for a dual block buy is not received, the Navy will proceed to down select in accordance with the terms of the current solicitation.  "
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       11/5/2010 4:16:14 PM
Hopefully they don't screw up again on the production. I am not sure how the USN will use 20 of those without specific mission modules. Most likely armed transport for SpecOps, anti-pirate patrol or light escorts in the seas near China. Much cheaper to operate if there are enough T-AKEs to feed them.
 
I can see how 7 or 8 will be deployed in Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf/Red Sea area, 5 or 6 stationed in Japan/Korea while the rest moving from Mediterranean to Mexican Gulf on regular schedule. There are much cheaper way to to the same, but what's done is done.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       11/5/2010 10:14:13 PM

........ Much cheaper to operate if there are enough T-AKEs to feed them.

 .....

You know, I think you're probably the first person I've seen on numerous forums who recognize that obvious drawback: without sufficient fuel replenishment capabilities, there won't be a lot of high speed dashes and short-distance sprints to anywhere.
That, or the LCS will be limited to patrolling in close proximity (within 1000km?) to shore support installations that can refuel the ships frequently.
We can't have these things by the dozens out there sucking down an unfair amount fuel that other important vessels need to complete their missions, just so these LCS can routinely go speedboating across the waves at the commander's every whim.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       11/6/2010 5:13:54 AM
Start by replacing some of the warships off the Somali coast with the 2 LCS currently available.  They are a better fit for the job than the larger warships currently there, it is one of the duties it is designed for.  Keep a landing ship in the area to serve as mother ship and supply Marine backup and as needed.  Rotating crew sections instead of vessels will help train crews for the follow on vessels.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       11/8/2010 11:39:44 AM

You know, I think you're probably the first person I've seen on numerous forums who recognize that obvious drawback: without sufficient fuel replenishment capabilities, there won't be a lot of high speed dashes and short-distance sprints to anywhere.

That, or the LCS will be limited to patrolling in close proximity (within 1000km?) to shore support installations that can refuel the ships frequently.

We can't have these things by the dozens out there sucking down an unfair amount fuel that other important vessels need to complete their missions, just so these LCS can routinely go speedboating across the waves at the commander's every whim.

I'm sure that I am not the first one. This must have been debated in the USN decision circle many times for many years. In the end, most of the time they will probably ban high speed and order the captains to sail under cruise speed, just like RAN recently did.
Maybe they will figure out a way to store extra fuel, food, fresh water and other supply in the empty space where mission modules were supposedly to be installed. "Endurance Module" would be a good term to use in that respect.
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       11/12/2010 4:01:55 PM
I guess $500,000,000 + ASurW module costs a ship to chase pirates, drug runners and Boghammars is considererd cost effective. Against just about anybody's corvette or in-shore patrol boat an LCS will get its A$$ kicked and with an automation reduced crew there are not a lot of people for damage control. Buying two classes of ships with the same capabilities is an unecessary duplication. The better design should have been selected and Lockheed Martin & General Dynamics both could have built it, competing with each other on price.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics