LCS: Waste of Money?

[Reclaimedwg]

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.

[botogames]

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.

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by wildtig2013

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.

Its apparently not ment for major naval battles. It appears to be a modular low intensity conflict ship designed to duplicate or supplant missions such as mine sweeping, landing craft-assault, coast defense, patrol, and ASW missions. It looks to be more of a "brown water" type navy ship rather than a true member of a deep sea fleet. Its probably designed specifically to free up things like frigates and destroyers for more important duties. Being modular would allow a fleet commander to tailor it specifically for what he needed. Think of it like an old school PT boat/ escort corvette, but with the United States penchant for trying to put everything and the kitchen sink into a single design.

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.

[Reclaimedwg]

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.

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by wildtig2013

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.

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.)

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by wildtig2013

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.

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.

I am no expert. But I would hazard a few observations.

• All light warships are vulnerable and always have been. British warships in the Falklands Conflict were designed to a conventional monohull pattern but made partly of aluminium and a number of them were lost to enemy action.
• I don't think these are even frigates. They certainly aren't designed to slug it out with heavy units on the surface, but I don't think that sort of naval combat is likely these days. You'd need to get past aircraft and surface missiles before you could fire a gun at one of these.
• In the 1980s, the Iranians took to sowing contact mines in the Straits of Hormuz to attack tankers headed for Kuwait (they were trading with Iraq via Kuwait) and, bizarrely, it turned out that the enormous US Navy didn't possess a single minesweeper. They had to negotiate with Britain and obtain the loan of a flotilla of the plastic boats which were used by the RN for this task. These ships look like they might be suitable for minesweeping and anti-submarine work.

That's my 2p (3c).

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.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

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.

I should mention that Britain is completing the replacement of the Type 42 destroyers with six Type 45 destroyers, and that due to mismanagement and cost overruns, these ships will cost more than £1.1bn each. Even at today's fallen exchange rate this comes out at $1.65bn per ship. Until their missile systems are ready, they will boast one 4.5" gun amd some 30mm cannons, which is not much for a 200 man ship which costs £1.1bn. Military procurement is an Alice in Wonderland world where normal ideas of value for money do not apply. Maybe $430bn isn't as bad as I thought.

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I should mention that Britain is completing the replacement of the Type 42 destroyers with six Type 45 destroyers, and that due to mismanagement and cost overruns, these ships will cost more than £1.1bn each. Even at today's fallen exchange rate this comes out at $1.65bn per ship. Until their missile systems are ready, they will boast one 4.5" gun amd some 30mm cannons, which is not much for a 200 man ship which costs £1.1bn. Military procurement is an Alice in Wonderland world where normal ideas of value for money do not apply. Maybe $430bn isn't as bad as I thought.

I think in the late 70's / early 80's a Nimitz class carrier without its strike group cost a billion dollars each. In 1997 dollars it costs 4.5 billion dollars, and the cost to operate such a ship for a projected life of 40-50 years was 22 billion in 1997 dollars.

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.

[vo1v0d]

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

[Reclaimedwg]

So since I posted this thread over 5 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship#List_of_littoral_combat_ships

As of February 2018, a total of 32 littoral combat ships are planned, including 15 Freedom-class ships and 17 Independence-class ships.

Freedom-class ships:

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFG(X)