• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Littoral Combat Ship - Freedom/Independence

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
540
That would be an extremely restricted set of media.
It is the direct evidence right out of the gun camera. You prefer a desired narrative to "surround" your information. Unless of course a very tiny opposing view is involved and then you are offended.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,642
Reaction score
399
You are assuming much. Where do you find the gun camera footage? Is that footage all you trust? That would make for a very restricted view of the world.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,642
Reaction score
399
Actually, I am. Also various Canadian and European media, Australian, some Asian, South African.
I am a bit suprised even the specialist US media get tarred with the same brush as, say, Rupert Murdoch's, err, produce.
It depends. The thing about military stuff is no matter WHAT it is somebody can make money tearing it down. Refuting claims, no matter how ridiculous, is often difficult because the required information is not publicly available or is classified. Consider all the media hysteria around the F-15, Apache, Abrams tank, Bradley, F-22, and F-35 before they proved themselves. Hell it was the same group of people that attacked the F-15 for being "gold plated" who then went on to do the same to the F-22 and F-35. (The F-35 had even more detractors because more people had an interest in seeing it fail.) When you've seen the same kind of thing decade after decade it becomes pretty difficult to believe any of them. You know how a program is TRULY as bad as the media says it is? When the military bails on it. See the Sgt. York for example. To hear the media tell it you'd think the DoD WANTS to buy $hitty equipment.
Which takes me to looking at different news sources. 'The media' means different things to different people.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,117
Reaction score
1,179
Actually, I am. Also various Canadian and European media, Australian, some Asian, South African.
I am a bit suprised even the specialist US media get tarred with the same brush as, say, Rupert Murdoch's, err, produce.
It depends. The thing about military stuff is no matter WHAT it is somebody can make money tearing it down. Refuting claims, no matter how ridiculous, is often difficult because the required information is not publicly available or is classified. Consider all the media hysteria around the F-15, Apache, Abrams tank, Bradley, F-22, and F-35 before they proved themselves. Hell it was the same group of people that attacked the F-15 for being "gold plated" who then went on to do the same to the F-22 and F-35. (The F-35 had even more detractors because more people had an interest in seeing it fail.) When you've seen the same kind of thing decade after decade it becomes pretty difficult to believe any of them. You know how a program is TRULY as bad as the media says it is? When the military bails on it. See the Sgt. York for example. To hear the media tell it you'd think the DoD WANTS to buy $hitty equipment.
Which takes me to looking at different news sources. 'The media' means different things to different people.
It does.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,386
Reaction score
411
Magnesium armour is what I have problems with and older magnesium items in general like some VW air cooled engine cases.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
540
You are assuming much. Where do you find the gun camera footage? Is that footage all you trust? That would make for a very restricted view of the world.

An astonishing display of skepticism not remotely consistent with your attitudes towards "mainstream" media.

By the way, a good example of "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes".
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
846
To drag this thread back to reality, it's worth noting that the first four ships are being retired because they're not very much like the rest of their cousins built in later blocks. That makes them sort of white elephants. They've been considered non-deployable for some time. The notion was that they would be kept around as test platforms but honestly, there isn't that much to test...

As for the value of the remainder, it's kinda hard to take them too seriously when you realize than none deployed in 2018, and only a couple in 2019, and I think none so far in 2020. (I could be wrong about 2020, and COVID is screwing up a lot, but still...)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,117
Reaction score
1,179
Magnesium armour is what I have problems with and older magnesium items in general like some VW air cooled engine cases.
The B-36 had significant amounts of magnesium.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,117
Reaction score
1,179
As for the value of the remainder, it's kinda hard to take them too seriously when you realize than none deployed in 2018, and only a couple in 2019, and I think none so far in 2020. (I could be wrong about 2020, and COVID is screwing up a lot, but still...)
Recent exercise with Japan:

200623-N-WP865-0993.JPG

Freedom of navigation:

 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
540
To drag this thread back to reality, it's worth noting that the first four ships are being retired because they're not very much like the rest of their cousins built in later blocks. That makes them sort of white elephants. They've been considered non-deployable for some time. The notion was that they would be kept around as test platforms but honestly, there isn't that much to test...

As for the value of the remainder, it's kinda hard to take them too seriously when you realize than none deployed in 2018, and only a couple in 2019, and I think none so far in 2020. (I could be wrong about 2020, and COVID is screwing up a lot, but still...)

In which you so lightly write off the entire field of ROV based warfare. The LCS as a ship is in series production. The ROV warfare packages (if you bothered to read the article I linked) are making steady progress and in piece wise deployment are showing significant benefits over existing systems.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
846
"Making steady progress" is pretty sad for being nearly 20 years into the development program. And a bunch of capabilities have been quietly dropped (RAMICS, for example).

As for the value of the remainder, it's kinda hard to take them too seriously when you realize than none deployed in 2018, and only a couple in 2019, and I think none so far in 2020. (I could be wrong about 2020, and COVID is screwing up a lot, but still...)
Recent exercise with Japan:

View attachment 636842

Freedom of navigation:

Thanks. That's the pair that I knew of that went out in 2019.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
28
This whole “respect” thing didn’t exist until you created it. Since you did, I pointed out the obvious.
Because your original post tied criticism the blogger had toward the program and the ship with that of the sailors on board. You're implying that there's a certain level of disrespect by the blogger by daring him to tell it to the sailors' faces. I simply pointed out the complete fallacy if not dishonesty of what you were implying.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
540
Because your original post tied criticism the blogger had toward the program and the ship with that of the sailors on board. You're implying that there's a certain level of disrespect by the blogger by daring him to tell it to the sailors' faces. I simply pointed out the complete fallacy if not dishonesty of what you were implying.

Poor reading comprehension. I was pointing out the opposite attitudes towards LCS ships displayed by the crew vs CdrSalamander. Just like Pierre Sprey vs F-35 pilots. At least he had the conviction to face them in debate.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
540
"Making steady progress" is pretty sad for being nearly 20 years into the development program. And a bunch of capabilities have been quietly dropped (RAMICS, for example).

20 years predates LCS. Yes it takes a long time to work out all the tedious kinks in making ROV systems robust enough to stake your life on them in combat. But LCS is the program on which that requirement is being addressed.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
170
I think this headline summarises this well:

It's Official: The U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Is a Complete Failure

The U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship was supposed to be cheap, fast, flexible and easy to build.
But after spending $30 billion over a period of around two decades, the U.S. Navy has managed to acquire just 35 of the 3,000-ton-displacement vessels.....


Regards
Pioneer

I’m not sure if citing National Interest is a subtle way of conceding defeat. The headline reads like so many similar articles for the F-35 (the use of “disaster”) it all blends together. Of course, if you want to base your conclusions on what the media tell you, then pretty much every major weapon system is simultaneously a technical disaster, waste of money, and destabilizing threat to peace.
Thanks for your thoughts fredymac

In truth I don't 'base all my conclusions on what the media tell me', but I often feel compelled to take onboard what the media sometimes alludes, for I'm very aware that government/Defence doesn't willing denote the realities of what is actually happening with their multi-billion dollar, career shaping and making programs.

I'm comfortable saying the quality of investigative journalism has deteriorated greatly over the past couple of decades, as to has the true transparency of military programs...
I guess it has to be somewhere in between that of what we are actually able to conclude between the power and influence of corporate business and those who serve and employee these given weapons systems/platforms in combat.
I have no problems in stating I was dubious of the Littoral Combat concept when it was conceived and more so when the Navy denoted it couldn't decide between the two designs, so built and operationally deployed two separate classes as a consequence...
I personally don't feel any rejoice of vindication that my origin suspicion and concerns for the combat capability vs their staggering cost have been recognised, for such time and expenditure on such limited capability ships can't be recuperated immediatly, even though the architects with the USN have finally woken up to smell the flowers that these vessels arn't adiquite to meet a peer rival like the PLAN and resurgent Russian Navy. Add to this the fact that such time, effort and money spent should have been on an actual full capable frigate class, which the rush to select, build and field the new FFG(X), which had to be an adoption of a foreign design speaks plenty to me.

As for the F-35, I don't even won't to go there...



Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
846
"Making steady progress" is pretty sad for being nearly 20 years into the development program. And a bunch of capabilities have been quietly dropped (RAMICS, for example).

20 years predates LCS. Yes it takes a long time to work out all the tedious kinks in making ROV systems robust enough to stake your life on them in combat. But LCS is the program on which that requirement is being addressed.
The LCS program began in November 2001. Several of the ROV programs associated with it actually predate the formal LCS program.

And there's no reason those ROVs need to be tied to LCS. We could have built a conventional frigate with a mission bay and gotten the same progress or lack thereof on the ROVs. LCS's problems largely stem from excessive speed demands (there has been serious talk of repowering the Independence design for better reliability), poor construction from novel techniques and materials, and gross undermanning. A lot of this just isn't fixable with the ships as designed.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,699
Reaction score
1,256
Magnesium armour is what I have problems with and older magnesium items in general like some VW air cooled engine cases.
The B-36 had significant amounts of magnesium.
"Magnesium overcast" - hell of a nickname ! ROTFL o_O

Magnesium was also massively used in Formula 1 in the same era (1960-1980, roughly) but any wreck resulted in fiery fires with the very unfortunate driver burned and roasted alive, so it (mercifully !) went away... :( (Giunti, Jo Siffert... the horror, the horror...)
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,699
Reaction score
1,256
What the frack happened to the mighty USN of the 80's / 90's, it produces such turds as the LCS ?
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,386
Reaction score
411
I believe that there are too many people/policies pulling in different directions and soaring cost's/delays/obfuscation etc.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
540
Thanks for your thoughts fredymac

In truth I don't 'base all my conclusions on what the media tell me', but I often feel compelled to take onboard what the media sometimes alludes, for I'm very aware that government/Defence doesn't willing denote the realities of what is actually happening with their multi-billion dollar, career shaping and making programs.

I'm comfortable saying the quality of investigative journalism has deteriorated greatly over the past couple of decades, as to has the true transparency of military programs...
I guess it has to be somewhere in between that of what we are actually able to conclude between the power and influence of corporate business and those who serve and employee these given weapons systems/platforms in combat.
I have no problems in stating I was dubious of the Littoral Combat concept when it was conceived and more so when the Navy denoted it couldn't decide between the two designs, so built and operationally deployed two separate classes as a consequence...
I personally don't feel any rejoice of vindication that my origin suspicion and concerns for the combat capability vs their staggering cost have been recognised, for such time and expenditure on such limited capability ships can't be recuperated immediatly, even though the architects with the USN have finally woken up to smell the flowers that these vessels arn't adiquite to meet a peer rival like the PLAN and resurgent Russian Navy. Add to this the fact that such time, effort and money spent should have been on an actual full capable frigate class, which the rush to select, build and field the new FFG(X), which had to be an adoption of a foreign design speaks plenty to me.

As for the F-35, I don't even won't to go there...



Regards
Pioneer

The LCS has specific mission tasks: mine hunting, sub hunting, and littoral policing. For those missions, it will be far more capable than anything currently doing them. It provides additional versatility to perform roles not originally thought of (as indicated by the Captain in the video).

The FFG is a much bigger, costlier platform and will be far more expensive to operate in the same roles without providing any better capability. It is in the fleet combat support that you can make a case. That case was not as apparent in the early 2000's when "brown" navy operations were emphasized.

As for the F-35, anyone who thinks it isn't a full up stealth fighter able to dominate the skies (other than an F-22) will find themselves with a limited lifespan if they ever have to face it in anything less than a fully equivalent stealth platform as multiple Red Flags and other demonstrations have now proven. And it is doing so at a unit cost no other program would have possibly achieved.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
540
The LCS program began in November 2001. Several of the ROV programs associated with it actually predate the formal LCS program.

And there's no reason those ROVs need to be tied to LCS. We could have built a conventional frigate with a mission bay and gotten the same progress or lack thereof on the ROVs. LCS's problems largely stem from excessive speed demands (there has been serious talk of repowering the Independence design for better reliability), poor construction from novel techniques and materials, and gross undermanning. A lot of this just isn't fixable with the ships as designed.

The first LCS was launched in mid 20005 and delivered to the Navy in 2008. ROV mission packages were started but serious development and operational testing required operating with the LCS itself to identify all the issues involved in launch/recovery and operation with acceptable levels of reliability. It is similar in nature to the problems of software bugs in the F-35 which only manifested once the aircraft was flying.

You again do your laundry list of ship problems. Once more. Do you seriously think they still exist with a ship in series production. The crew in the video discussed how manning levels made it necessary for everyone to be competent in multiple fields but that in turn meant their jobs were varied and non-repetitive. If what you said was true, LCS crew retention and recruiting would have serious issues. Do you have the proof that these exist?

You make statements that directly contradict what the crew and officers of the LCS ship say. In making a decision on who to trust, I will go with them.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
846
Great, knock yourself out. I've worked the other side, doing program "strategic communications" (aka marketing) for Navy shipbuilding programs. I've supported Navy commands as recently as a year ago and talk with folks who are still active in Navy acquisition circles. I'm confident in my understanding of how Navy public communications work. I find nothing officially released to be convincing at all.

Look, I get it. LCS sounds like a really cool idea. I thought it might even work early on. But the program execution has been a disaster and the deployment of mission systems is a slow motion train wreck.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
540
Great, knock yourself out. I've worked the other side, doing program "strategic communications" (aka marketing) for Navy shipbuilding programs. I've supported Navy commands as recently as a year ago and talk with folks who are still active in Navy acquisition circles. I'm confident in my understanding of how Navy public communications work. I find nothing officially released to be convincing at all.

Look, I get it. LCS sounds like a really cool idea. I thought it might even work early on. But the program execution has been a disaster and the deployment of mission systems is a slow motion train wreck.

Sounds like the steam vs EMAL catapult philosophy. I'll take the risk knowing there will be bugs and glitches to fix.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
540
Another slightly older PR vid. The only stickler is that these guys are the ones who take these ships into combat and will suffer the consequences if it's all just hype.


 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
98
Reaction score
137
The U.S. Navy’s UX-24 squadron is preparing to start testing of the Leonardo AN/ZPY-8 Osprey radar on the MQ-8C unmanned helicopter. Ghost Wolf 304 conducts an Electromagnetic Compatibility Safety of Flight Test in advance of f...jpg

The SUW increment is designed to integrate the new AN/ZPY-8 maritime surface search radar with the proven BRITE Star Block II (BSBII) targeting turret, and the powerful Minotaur processing suite aboard the MQ-8C.

The radar will provide long-range detection and tracking and radar imaging capabilities. Fielding of the AN/ZPY-8 equipped MQ-8C will enhance the aircraft’s current maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities and enhance the lethality of the new Littoral Combat Ship-based Naval Strike Missile by providing an unmanned, organic over-the-horizon targeting platform. The AN/ZPY-8, in concert with Minotaur’s track and mission management system, will also provide increased overland ISR capability through moving-target detection and BSBII video moving target indications.

 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
540
Tour of LCS 17. This ship is slated for the mine countermeasure mission although it will retain the weapons/functions that lets its do things like littoral policing. So it replaces something like this:

minesweeper.jpg


 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,699
Reaction score
1,256
Wait, is that an OH-58 / Bell 206 (whatever the name) with the windows obstrued ?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
846
Wait, is that an OH-58 / Bell 206 (whatever the name) with the windows obstrued ?
MQ-8C Firescout UAV, which is basically a Bell Model 407 airframe with the avionics from the MQ-8B Firescout. Model 407 is a relative of the OH-58, so sort of. Fuselage is wider but the rotor bits are similar.
 
Top