http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/...SRC=dod.nl

Quote:U.S. Navy officials told a government watchdog the Littoral Combat Ship fleet is ill suited for duty in the Pacific, according to a Bloomberg report.

"Several 7th Fleet officials told us they thought the LCS in general might be better suited to operations in the Persian Gulf," said a Government Accountability Office report.

GAO officials said the controversial LCS lacks the speed, range and electronic warfare capabilities to function in the geographic expanse that is the Pacific theater
~more~

salts call the LCS the "little crappy ship".

Yes, the LCS is literally designed to work in shallow waters. I suspect there is a fair bit of mission creep going on in the Navy in trying to over-push procurement. And, I think there seems to be considerable doubt about whether the ship is suitable or advisable for the mission for which it was actually designed.

Littoral - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/littoral Wrote:of, relating to, or situated or growing on or near a shore especially of the sea

(04-14-2014 12:02 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Yes, the LCS is literally designed to work in shallow waters. I suspect there is a fair bit of mission creep going on in the Navy in trying to over-push procurement. And, I think there seems to be considerable doubt about whether the ship is suitable or advisable for the mission for which it was actually designed.

To be fair, it was designed to address asymmetrical warfare issues in the Middle East. Back at a time when that was going to be our only problem.

I think there's a quote about your military is prepared for your last war.

(04-14-2014 12:06 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  To be fair, it was designed to address asymmetrical warfare issues in the Middle East. Back at a time when that was going to be our only problem.

I think there's a quote about your military is prepared for your last war.

Too much of what I've heard about the ship indicates that it was designed to make the career of someone at the pentagon.

It is a huge waste of money for minimal capability.

The LCS, the Ford-class, the V-22, and the F-35 are all colossal wastes of money.

Many defense procurements are simply disguised pork.

(04-14-2014 01:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It is a huge waste of money for minimal capability.

The LCS, the Ford-class, the V-22, and the F-35 are all colossal wastes of money.

None of the Mission Modules are even close to deployment. You have a 350 foot long ship armed with a single 57mm that jams frequently & has unreliable electro-optical sights.

or any other ocean.

Guess what: The Mine Counter Measures module doesn't work. And this is the second major redesign. MCM is hard slow nasty tedious work. There are no magic bullet technical shortcuts.

The shallow water ASW module is a waste. Looking for Diesel or AIP Boats in under 300 feet of water just drop active sonobuoys from a LAMPS like it's been done for 40 years

The navy needs to get over the idea that MCM is a mission anybody can do, and go back to purpose-built platforms. Nobody wants to spend money on mine warfare, and doing it half-assed bites you in the ass every time. Besides, who wants an asset with the cost and speed of an LCS doing snail's-pace MCM? It's just incredibly stupid. Of course, that assumes that the LCS is an asset, and that is as of yet quite unclear.

Naval Institute Proceedings has an article this month calling for use of the new Coast Guard cutter as a base for new navy frigates. Maybe we make the LCS's into cutters. High speed, pop gun, big helo platform. Sounds like the makings of a pretty good cutter to me.