|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
General Discussion & News Want to speak your mind about something ... do it here. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
February 26th, 2013, 03:54 AM | #1 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,414
Thanks: 7,709
Thanked 26,946 Times in 3,089 Posts
|
LCS: Waste of Money?
I am watching this:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...ntury-warship/ About these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship Seems like a waste of money to me because I get the impression they are very vulnerable to Anti-Ship Missiles and attacks by bigger heavier ships with bigger, longer range guns and missiles like an enemy destroyer, frigate, or cruiser. Read that wiki page and share your opinion. This ship looks very lightly armed, poorly armored (made of aluminum) and in a hostile environment such as a major naval battle, it will be destroyed in no time. |
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Reclaimedwg For This Useful Post: |
|
February 26th, 2013, 04:13 AM | #2 |
Everything in Moderation
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: On VACA - Aloha!
Posts: 2,923
Thanks: 143,500
Thanked 42,714 Times in 2,706 Posts
|
OK...
Generally all countries are moving to these fast attack vessels rather quickly. China has them so do the Russians -- GB, France were the first to use them. The US is just getting into them now. Yes they are light weight, but that what makes them fast and easy to operate. And they have fewer crew aboard
My answer is NO.
__________________
"Enjoy your day off, laborers, and have some chili – you’ve earned it!" -- Lt. Frank Columbo Did you know... VEF membership has it's privileges... read the… To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. …to learn more about them!! And remember to have fun on VEF!! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I guess it’s just another day...! Max & Jenny I’ll miss you.
|
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to botogames For This Useful Post: |
February 26th, 2013, 04:17 AM | #3 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 597
Thanks: 1,896
Thanked 5,570 Times in 591 Posts
|
Quote:
Since WW II most warships are actually not designed to withstand modern anti ship ordinance. They tend to rely on active (as in radar guided auto-cannons) or passive (massive EW) defenses instead. Most anti ship ordinance has far more destructive power than its WW II forebears so designing a ships hull with enough armor to actually resist it is felt to be cost prohibitive. One of the reasons old New Jerseys were kept in mothball so long was they could probably shrug off hits by modern weapon systems, but their own main batteries are outdistanced by modern ship weapon systems. |
|
The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to dethtongue For This Useful Post: |
February 26th, 2013, 04:22 AM | #4 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,414
Thanks: 7,709
Thanked 26,946 Times in 3,089 Posts
|
Well, it doesn't seem to have much defense against anything and it's weapons have limited range.
The enemy can take it out from well far outside the range of this ship's weapons. |
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Reclaimedwg For This Useful Post: |
February 26th, 2013, 04:27 AM | #5 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 597
Thanks: 1,896
Thanked 5,570 Times in 591 Posts
|
And if it were designed as a wannabe cruiser or destroyer that would be a genuine problem. Its really more of a mine sweeper with a broader mission profile. Its not ment for stand up combat in much the same way no admiral would sanely suggest dispatching a squadron of mine sweepers to engage destroyers. Its designed to FREE UP things like destroyers and frigates for stand up battles. If such things can be said to actually occur in modern naval combat. (its really more of an over the horizon radar fight now-a-days even without carriers involved. Modern guns on a warship are a decidedly SECONDARY weapon.)
|
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to dethtongue For This Useful Post: |
March 2nd, 2013, 10:43 AM | #6 | |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,237
Thanks: 162,388
Thanked 278,408 Times in 26,182 Posts
|
Quote:
Postscript: they're 127 metres long: that's pretty big. It looks like they're a bit more than I thought, and the target price is $430m a pop. I wouldn't dream of ordering 52 of these (about $22-23bn capital cost) without proving the concept first. Also, $430m apiece is far too much dosh. The Navy and the builders could and should have considered building to a more realistic price. Uncle Sam isn't made of money.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: |
March 2nd, 2013, 11:56 AM | #7 | |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,237
Thanks: 162,388
Thanked 278,408 Times in 26,182 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: |
March 5th, 2013, 01:10 AM | #8 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 597
Thanks: 1,896
Thanked 5,570 Times in 591 Posts
|
Quote:
The next 3 super-carriers planned will cost 8 billion each. This is just the carrier. The 90 plane strike group will probably double that. As absurd as this sounds that's actually less than I thought it would be. Then again this is what the navy is saying it will cost so it may be safest to double that number. To be honest far from being a waste of money the US armed forces needs MORE programs like the LCS. Things that offer our military more flexibility and responsiveness. At the procurement end of the Military-industrial complex the high ranking admirals/ generals love high-end toys like new aircraft carriers or tanks/ planes often to the detriment of more mundane things like making sure all those things have adequate stocks of ammunition and replacement parts. Offer a general a choice between ten new tanks and replacement parts for fifty tanks and they will choose the ten new ones every time. It may be an urban legend but one theory I've heard about why George Bush senior decided NOT to invade Iraq after destroying its army is the US Army and Air Force were beginning to run out of munitions for their weapon systems. This isn't as far fetched as it sounds when you consider we spent the better part of six months stockpiling troops and weapons for an offensive to begin with. Last edited by dethtongue; March 5th, 2013 at 01:20 AM.. |
|
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to dethtongue For This Useful Post: |
November 5th, 2018, 10:22 AM | #9 |
Hideous By Nature
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: sarf eeeest lunden
Posts: 8,216
Thanks: 42,134
Thanked 60,451 Times in 7,425 Posts
|
Scoundrel you are right; Uncle Sam is not made of money because it is made of debt. The defence budget has somehow managed to misplace twenty trillion dollars over the last twenty years. Twenty followed by twelve zeros, which is coincidentally the exact sum of Americas entire national debt. For scale, the UK gross domestic income is just over two and a half trillion dollars. And a trillion dollars is about the same as the six largest countries in europe spend on providing free healthcare. We must seem weird to americans spending such a large amount of money on the health and welfare of our own population instead of killing foreigners
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to vo1v0d For This Useful Post: |
November 5th, 2018, 10:28 AM | #10 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,414
Thanks: 7,709
Thanked 26,946 Times in 3,089 Posts
|
So since I posted this thread over 5 years ago:
Code:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship#List_of_littoral_combat_ships Quote:
Planned: 15 On order: 2 Building: 8 Completed: 5 Active: 5 Independence-class ships: Planned: 17 On order: 3 Building: 7 Completed: 11 Active: 7 They are already being replaced: Code:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFG(X) |
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Reclaimedwg For This Useful Post: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|