3 ms·

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

by 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 USA certainly has such experience, although maybe it's 40 years out of date?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

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.