3 ms·

Just to inject some facts, the LCS rather optimistically handles 6 separate missions, and one of them is replacing 70 OHP-class frigates from forty or so years

by VLM 10y ago

Just to inject some facts, the LCS rather optimistically handles 6 separate missions, and one of them is replacing 70 OHP-class frigates from forty or so years ago. The LCS ship count is down to 40 and still dropping. The "doesn't work" bit is because they're too cheaply made and try to do six missions. If it costs $1 to build a CPU and you offer a 75 cent contract for a six core processor, you're gonna get a brick in a box not a working CPU. They're in damage control now, what is the strategy that minimizes bad press WRT spending money upfront or on repairs... Another interesting fact is "all" new ship classes are clunkers for the first couple ships and first couple years. It would be newsworthy if the LCS worked perfectly outta the box. Because that would be an indication things were over spec'd and contracts were padded increasing the bill higher than it should be, so we'd be showered with reports of the new ripoff being overbuilt and padded for profit. There is no way for the Navy to win on any possible scenario of new ship classes. So I wouldn't read much into the journalist complaining, it doesn't mean anything substantial. There is the true fact that if you try to replace an auto mechanic's $10K toolchest with a swiss army knife, that might be engineering-possible but you'll have to blow $100K and it might not work as well as dedicated tools. The idea itself of "saving money" by running six different missions using 40 multipurpose ships to replace 70 ships in itself might be a pretty dumb strategy but the only way to find out seems to be to try. Its interesting to consider a 2010s OHP frigate. A little architectural fine tuning, call it the OHP-II, the cost savings would be staggering so buy 60 of them for less money than the 30 or so LCS we're likely to end up with... Of course you'd be stuck with a cold war mission core design. It might very well be that a post cold war littoral mission is just simply going to cost more money than bluewater cold war missions. Post cold war should in theory nationwide be cheaper, that doesn't mean all possible missions magically will become cheaper.

jobu 10y ago
"according to critics, it is unfortunately the seagoing equivalent of the Air Force’s trillion-dollar F-35 fighter plane: designed too ambitiously to fulfill too many roles and, as a consequence, well over its budget, flawed in its execution and struggling to meet even minimal operational requirements"
rrmm 10y ago
At least we'll save money by having all the branches use the JSF for everything. I mean with all that commonality, there's no way we can go wrong...right? /s
jessaustin 10y ago
Its interesting to consider a 2010s OHP frigate. A little architectural fine tuning, call it the OHP-II, the cost savings would be staggering so buy 60 of them for less money than the 30 or so LCS we're likely to end up with... Of course you'd be stuck with a cold war mission core design. That sounds nice, but I've seen no indication that today's Pentagon is capable of purchasing such a product. What do other countries with littoral interests use? Could we buy the same thing as e.g. Indonesia or Nigeria, and then just tart it up with some fancier electronics? Has any mission actually become cheaper since the Cold War?
- VLM 10y ago
  Generally speaking the LCS is an imperial tool. No other nations will have anything quite like it. Which is why we're not calling it our answer to the Russian WTF-class or going in halfsies with our UK-bros. No foreign sales, just a bit of "that's interesting" from a half dozen countries. Its an R+D platform to the very highest levels, not just nuts and bolts level innards. Its a revolutionary ship, not an evolutionary ship. Revolutionary ships have always been very expensive and slow to produce. Sometimes they just don't work. This aspect is not covered in the linked article. Sometimes experiments like "the aircraft carrier" turn out pretty well, other times things like "electromotive propulsion (diesel train style)" don't work so well. I think its possible all missions are more expensive. During the cold war it was all about looking scary to the Soviets but not actually firing thereby starting WW3. Post cold war its constant hot fire missions invading and occupying countries, the modern Crusades in the middle east and all that. Actually shooting weapons is always more expensive than merely looking tough.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    To this ignorant observer, the task is: traveling and occasionally fighting, in shallow coastal water. That requires a ship with shallow draft, which meets certain minimums for maneuver, survival, and deadliness. Those minimums would have to be developed with an understanding of previous military experience in shallow coastal water. USA certainly has such experience, although maybe it's 40 years out of date? Have there been no more recent conflicts in such an environment? That seems unlikely, so it would be an indictment of the Pentagon if such had been ignored while developing this ship. That would also be confirmation of TFA's point that this program should be canceled. Another such confirmation would be to learn that some airy ridiculous notion like "imperial tool" were ever considered by the designers. The first aircraft carriers were big boats with flat decks. The effect may have been "revolutionary" but the design certainly wasn't.

by VLM 10y ago

jobu 10y ago

"according to critics, it is unfortunately the seagoing equivalent of the Air Force’s trillion-dollar F-35 fighter plane: designed too ambitiously to fulfill too many roles and, as a consequence, well over its budget, flawed in its execution and struggling to meet even minimal operational requirements"

rrmm 10y ago

At least we'll save money by having all the branches use the JSF for everything. I mean with all that commonality, there's no way we can go wrong...right? /s

jessaustin 10y ago

Its interesting to consider a 2010s OHP frigate. A little architectural fine tuning, call it the OHP-II, the cost savings would be staggering so buy 60 of them for less money than the 30 or so LCS we're likely to end up with... Of course you'd be stuck with a cold war mission core design. That sounds nice, but I've seen no indication that today's Pentagon is capable of purchasing such a product. What do other countries with littoral interests use? Could we buy the same thing as e.g. Indonesia or Nigeria, and then just tart it up with some fancier electronics? Has any mission actually become cheaper since the Cold War?

VLM 10y ago
Generally speaking the LCS is an imperial tool. No other nations will have anything quite like it. Which is why we're not calling it our answer to the Russian WTF-class or going in halfsies with our UK-bros. No foreign sales, just a bit of "that's interesting" from a half dozen countries. Its an R+D platform to the very highest levels, not just nuts and bolts level innards. Its a revolutionary ship, not an evolutionary ship. Revolutionary ships have always been very expensive and slow to produce. Sometimes they just don't work. This aspect is not covered in the linked article. Sometimes experiments like "the aircraft carrier" turn out pretty well, other times things like "electromotive propulsion (diesel train style)" don't work so well. I think its possible all missions are more expensive. During the cold war it was all about looking scary to the Soviets but not actually firing thereby starting WW3. Post cold war its constant hot fire missions invading and occupying countries, the modern Crusades in the middle east and all that. Actually shooting weapons is always more expensive than merely looking tough.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  To this ignorant observer, the task is: traveling and occasionally fighting, in shallow coastal water. That requires a ship with shallow draft, which meets certain minimums for maneuver, survival, and deadliness. Those minimums would have to be developed with an understanding of previous military experience in shallow coastal water. USA certainly has such experience, although maybe it's 40 years out of date? Have there been no more recent conflicts in such an environment? That seems unlikely, so it would be an indictment of the Pentagon if such had been ignored while developing this ship. That would also be confirmation of TFA's point that this program should be canceled. Another such confirmation would be to learn that some airy ridiculous notion like "imperial tool" were ever considered by the designers. The first aircraft carriers were big boats with flat decks. The effect may have been "revolutionary" but the design certainly wasn't.