Apparently, we've forgotten how to build surface warships. http://http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/gao-report-savages-navy-s-new-aircraft-carrier-1.239569 First the issues with the new Zumwalt class destroyers, the Littoral Combat Ship fiasco, now this. Sometimes, I worry about the viability of our defense industry.
The LCS is madness. An insane amount of money spent for frankly dubious capability. It's probably the biggest boondoggle since the Dynamite Cruiser and HMS Captain.
Hmmm. Maybe the lack of testing was due to people trying to rush the production of this thing 'cuz of the lack of carriers (I think we're one short with Enterprise being de-commissioned) and Nimitz has been the biggest joke on the San Diego fleet--except to the poor ship that had to deploy in it's place barely four months from returning from an eight-month deployment. And the first ships of a new class will always have kinks that will show up and have to get ironed out. The San Antonio was a head-to-toe disaster and many of the ones immediately after had major delays in production. I'm commissioning one such ship, and I've been told it's a miracle that we've only managed to get pushed back six months.
Aren't the Ford class of carriers supposed to have a much higher degree of automation so that the overall crew size can be cut by up to 1,000? Perhaps that is a factor along with the "lifetime nuclear reactors" that supposedly will never require refueling.
Nuclear ships go through a mid-life overhaul, where they replenish the reactor or something along those lines. So while they don't need to pull into a port to refuel like traditional ships, they do need some maintenance eventually on that front. And I think all the new ship designs are geared to use as few personnel as possible these days. That Zuwalt class destroyer will have a max crew of 15, IIRC---less than half of what the current Arleigh Burkes were designed for (320, but few are lucky enough to have a crew compliment of over 260 at any given time).
Only in the United States would we see being down one carrier as a lack of carriers. Lest anyone forget, we still have 10 aircraft carriers in service currently, for a rough tonnage of 1,041,703 metric tonnes. The next highest country is China, at 1 aircraft carrier at 67,500. Oh, and the US is the only country besides France that has nuclear propulsion on its aircraft carriers.
As someone that's a part of the Navy, I say "shortage" as in we're required by Congress to have eleven. But even with us having ten, you'll have at least two or three of 'em in the yards at any given time, and when one breaks down unexpectedly, another one is having to pick up that slack. One carrier was deployed 20 months in the last two years because they had to take the deployment on another ship whose engine fucked up....and that reallly *is* miserable to those personnel on the ships that take care of their shit, like my old ship was.
Ok I read Anc's link about the LCS. Now can anyone else tell this non squid why it is such a cluster fuck? As for the Ford and it being clumsy" there is a joke in there some where. I just know it
The better question to ask is what wasn't wrong with that ship. I've met a few sailors on that ship from several different departments and all of them had fucked up equipment....like, major fucked up shit. The chick in my division that was on there a year and a half ago before she got pregnant said that before they went into the yards, they had one, 200 pound dryer that worked--and keep in mind this is for a crew that was 5000 people. As for what was the final straw on the camel's back, I think had something to do with the engines. But it's been fixed, and they're now patrolling the water around Syria, ready to launch planes if necessary.
The short answer on LCS is that they cost too much, have too little firepower, and aren't sufficiently survivable.
That's what they said about the Stryker, but in the kind of wars we found ourselves in they were indispensible to the point that Stryker units had waivers for operating without AC (any other Vic had an AC go out they were pulled off the line).
Wait...you fuckers had AC inside of those things? Yeah it makes sense since the environment, but I never thought the Army would get their heads outta their asses about that one.
Yeah I'm not impressed by these LCS. I just read the wiki page on them to find out the costs and it seems they are expensive and super vulnerable to anything with real firepower. Also check this out: http://www.businessinsider.com/cut-the-littoral-combat-ship-2013-6?op=1 Looks like people within the Navy are saying it's a waste.....
No. No we did not. Thus the waiver. We were the only vics running around the whole country without AC. The drivers had a cooling vest as they were right beside the engine, but it was shit so early on we just had to keep them hooked up to IVs until they acclimated. But yeah, a dark green metal box running around the desert with no AC and 11 dudes packed in so tight that you had two dudes legs between your own, slightly offset, so your knees were in the crotch of the two dudes across from you, and theirs were in your crotch. Fucking awesome. Now the newer Strykers had AC. So if you blew your engine and had to have your powerpack replaced you got AC when they put the new powerpack in. There was a vic in 3rd that blew their engine. Rumor was their truck team intentionally sabotaged their oil tank, but what kind of shitbags leave their platoon down a truck for 2-3 weeks just so they can get AC like a POG or Cav-Fag?
That's what people said about the Blackhawk, weaponry is too light and not enough armor. That is what they said about the Stryker, weaponry is too light and not enough armor*. Both have proven that getting in fast, dumping your guys and getting out is protection of it's own OR against the kinds of enemies we've been facing, getting in, dumping them, and hanging out being a support platform. *an ICV Stryker has the same guns (either a M2 or a Mk19) as an 1151, it's just that it moves faster and has a V shaped hull so IEDs don't kill everyone. Oh yeah, and instead of three dudes popping out, an entire squad does. You take 4 humvees and secure a building and you have 4 trucks and 12 riflemen (maybe a couple have 203s), with little supplies. You take 4 Strykers and you have 4 trucks and 36 dudes, six of which have SAWs, six 203s, 2 have 240s, 3 have M14s, 1 has a Barrett and they've got enough food water and ammo to hold the position for days. Same firepower, same armor, but can a lot further, faster, with better offroad handling, better IED protection, and carry a lot more dudes, weapons and supplies. Now maybe I'm biased, but in the kinds of wars I've fault in, mobility and ability to put dudes on the ground and supply them has been more important than armor and firepower.
Yeah, that was a really dumb move. In 2009 they painted a handful of Strykers tan, but then repainted them CARC green in Kuwait (or Qatar?) before they were sent into action. I've yet to see a photo of a tan one in action, either in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Navy is a lot different. A Blackhawk or a Stryker goes down it's only a few million dollars. One of these ships goes down and it's a significant cost in lives and cost of the ship. If the Navy's own classified reports that have been leaked say the ship is a disaster waiting to happen then it's best to kill it and make a new LCS.
Sounds like they're well on the way to building the USS Barack Obama. It will be the first carrier that sinks itself.
Dude, I did my time in the back of a Bradley, so I can more than empthasize. At least with the 113s we always ran with the troop hatch open. I hated being a fucking dismount in a Bradley, periscope non with standing. So I can only imagine the sardine feeling being in the back of am A2 or Stryker where the dismounts can't even look out to see whats going on. Got any links? Not a challenge, just curiosity. See I get what Anc is saying about the Stryker. They said the same thing about the Bradley. However you bring up a good point about the difference in impact of losing one Vs. another.
This PDF does a good job of imparting information on the LCS program in general. For my money, I would terminate the LCS program immediately, and retool the USCG Berthoff class cutters to meet the need. It's a much better platform, cheaper and better designed. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Cutter
