Fixing first four littoral combat ships not worth it, US Navy says
 

https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/SC...Q23EWT4E2Q.JPG
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-us-navy-says/

Is it me or does this seem like an awfully expensive waste of resources?

If they have outlived their usefulness then I'd have thought the finance saved would be better spent elsewhere.

I sincerely hope it is not the beginning of cuts that we in the UK have witnessed to our Royal Navy.

Just don't sell them to another country and then have them used against us someday :o

The Chinese wouldn't buy them, they'd simply copy them :)

The whole concept of the Littoral Combat ships never made much sense to me. I always saw it as just the U.S. Navy's response to trying to stay relevant in the wake of 9/11.

I always was a bit underwhelmed by the idea and concept or corvette-sized ships, to which LCS compares. On the smaller end: fast attack and patrol boats, and on the bigger end: frigates, okay, makes sense. But corvettes, LCS? When a patrol boat is not sufficient, i would not dare to send just a corvette, and when a frigate is overkill, why not sending a patrol boat.



Its a class that makes little sense to me. Like the endless list of different models in Samsung' cellphone and tablet lineup: you could cut it by two thirds and still would have a diversity that covers every market and customer segment.

Why can't they use them in the Navy Reserve Fleet to train sailors?
Like maybe even one in the Great Lakes at Naval Training center.

They have lots of old navy ships in mothballs too. No reason to cut them up
and destroy them.

I may be wrong but weren't those the ships that suffered from corrosion with their aluminium/magnesium alloy hulls?

If, then put them aways from salt water (on the great lakes?) and use them for training :hmmm:

Brought to you by the same great minds that brought you blueberries. :03:

Ah, the LCS, the result of trying to shove Powerpoint-level innovation at the cost of budget, delays and performance. I remember that saga making me go WTF for years with huge under-equipped ships showing low levels of reliability and little capability compared to frigates made everywhere else.

Second rank ships are supposed to be cheap and reliable, and it's a good thing the LCS are finally getting recognized as neither by the purse holders.

Wut? Why do you think that? lol

The Portland Fleet week, where they had on of these there, they were kinda of a running joke to everybody else (the rest of the ships there), but not to their own crews. :Kaleun_Wink:

Oh wow, I hadn't realized before I saw the picture quoted in the post above: it's like the designers decided to copied the angled look of modern ships but didn't understand that it's about reducing RCS as they then added a bunch of huge circular Harpoon canisters without any coverage from the outside. You know, unlike what actual LO-ships actually do. It's like they want enemy missiles to head on the Harpoon canisters, located themselves near the main gun, which is a cunning way of imitating British battlecruisers from Jutland.

To be honest i do see some merit in them and i can see what the USN is doing by building them.

Oddly i think they have taken a leaf out of the Russian book buy building smaller assets but more of them than major assets, basically to act as a force multiplier to keep the ship numbers up but overall costs down.

This is exactly what we are seeing in the Russian navy today, building very powerful corvettes and frigates but not yet investing in the DDG and CG areas.
If we look at the USN the CGX program was stopped as was the DDX, also factor in the early decommissioning of the Perry class frigate with no direct replacement and why did all this happen ? simply because of cost.

The USN relies heavily on large DDG's in the Burke class and they are fantastic capital assets, multi role jack of all trades what the USN has in this DDG is a platform that can be both offensive and defensive at the same time.

Now this is where the issue becomes a little more complex, these capital assets the DDG's are more suited to a high threat area working independently or as part of a CSG, areas such as the persian gulf and south china sea.
However all to often you will find them in low threat areas such as the Caribbean doing anti drug operations, the Gulf of Aden doing Anti Piracy operations with CTF150, so the USN is utilizing a capital asset in an area that in reality its not needed and can be filled by a much more cost effective vessel, these areas would have been the perfect fit for the Perry class, but we dont have them any more.

what type of ship can undertake that type of low threat role but still be a worthy deterrent ? well in my view the LCS can release the capital asset from these duties and still maintain a presence.
After all when you think about it logically 4 men in a skiff with a dozen RPGs and AK47's is hardly a match for a Arleigh Burke with a 96 cell VLS launcher and a 5 inch gun is it?

The USN should in my opinion focus on deploying the LCS in these areas and release the capital assets, they will still be more powerful than the threat that exists already and using this vessel will be cheaper than having a DDG running around the place.

Just a W.A.G. but I figure if it was from the start a poor idea, and now the Navy refuses to maintain them. My guess is they didnt want the project to begin with. Look at who was involved in the push to build these tubs. Might find the whole project was just pork attached to some bill to boost certain States economy.

I'd buy that.:Kaleun_Salute:
So are these the "Brewster Buffalos" of the 21st Century?