TheLastColdBeer Posted December 10, 2015 Member ID: 489 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 52 Topic Count: 553 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 4745 Content Per Day: 0.83 Reputation: 6058 Achievement Points: 42053 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 18 Joined: 09/22/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: December 23, 2024 Birthday: 01/09/1963 Device: Android Posted December 10, 2015 Different looking vessel. At 4 billion a copy, and a displacement exceeding WW2 heavy cruisers, I wonder if the Bureau of Ships knows what it's doing. Destroyers traditionally have been ships that were relatively cheap, built in large quantities, and openly risked in hostile environments. Seems that thinking has gone by the wayside. I was a member of the Navy League for 25 years, but dropped my membership over the LCS white elephant. Didn't make sense to build 2 billion dollar coast guard cutters to run down $50 rubber rafts. What do ya'll think? TedsofBeverlyHills, YACCster, Trailrtrash and 1 other 4 Awards
little_old_man Posted December 10, 2015 Member ID: 1194 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 40 Topic Count: 436 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 6692 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 11691 Achievement Points: 53094 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 76 Joined: 02/27/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: April 16, 2023 Birthday: 04/15/1960 Posted December 10, 2015 I think some government military contractors are laughing all the way to the bank. We could have re-armed and modernized WWII era war ships and still beaten the pants off of any navy in the world. This is just typical wasteful spending, something our government does better than anybody else. Spartacus, 1lost1, Leadfinger and 3 others 6 Awards
TBB Posted December 11, 2015 Member ID: 989 Group: *** Clan Members Followers: 25 Topic Count: 290 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 20377 Content Per Day: 3.64 Reputation: 22448 Achievement Points: 147309 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 389 Joined: 01/07/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: 7 hours ago Birthday: 01/27/1946 Device: Windows Posted December 11, 2015 I think some government military contractors are laughing all the way to the bank. We could have re-armed and modernized WWII era war ships and still beaten the pants off of any navy in the world. This is just typical wasteful spending, something our government does better than anybody else. Looks like a big phallic symbol little_old_man and Spartacus 2 Awards
TheLastColdBeer Posted December 11, 2015 Member ID: 489 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 52 Topic Count: 553 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 4745 Content Per Day: 0.83 Reputation: 6058 Achievement Points: 42053 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 18 Joined: 09/22/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: December 23, 2024 Birthday: 01/09/1963 Device: Android Author Posted December 11, 2015 Looks like a big phallic symbol Looks just plain Fugly to me. Chalk it up there with the B2, F35, Littoral Combat Ship, and the Land Warrior System. Does the Department of Defense have any idea what value for your money means? Might as well admit that all congressmen are members of the board of Raytheon. Makes as much sense as sending a $2 million dollar Tomahawk to take out a truck worth $5 grand. Also brings into question our intelligence agencies. They claim it takes 16 agents to watch one suspect. At that rate we don't need any enemies, we've beaten ourselves. little_old_man, Mule, Spartacus and 1 other 4 Awards
rookido Posted December 11, 2015 Member ID: 5785 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 7 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 172 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 74 Achievement Points: 1098 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/13 Status: Offline Last Seen: February 19, 2024 Birthday: 01/01/1970 Posted December 11, 2015 I guess this is going to scare if not intimidaing the hell out of other country navy ships in the open sea. It's quite a new toy for the us navy with high price tag. Awards
Bosun Posted December 11, 2015 Member ID: 1445 Group: *** Clan Members Followers: 14 Topic Count: 31 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 737 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 1387 Achievement Points: 5675 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/25/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: 6 hours ago Birthday: 01/23/1963 Device: Windows Posted December 11, 2015 Well the original plan was to build 32 of these destroyers but the plan was vetoed by Congress and only 3 are being built - that is why they are about $4 billion each to build - I believe that includes the development costs. As far as the LCS goes, I spent quite a few months on one of the "concept" demonstrators, great in flat water, absolute pig of a thing in any sort of sea due to very shallow draft outboard hulls. At least one of them is in refit already I believe with cracks in the hull. Mule and Leadfinger 2 Awards
TheLastColdBeer Posted December 11, 2015 Member ID: 489 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 52 Topic Count: 553 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 4745 Content Per Day: 0.83 Reputation: 6058 Achievement Points: 42053 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 18 Joined: 09/22/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: December 23, 2024 Birthday: 01/09/1963 Device: Android Author Posted December 11, 2015 Yes @@Bosun, another answer to a question nobody asked. The LCS kept changing missions and specifications until they had a fifty knot catamaran without a balanced weapons package, no chance of surviving even modest damage, no endurance due to fantastic fuel consumption, and a boat with no blue water ability. Would take three of them to cover the capabilities of one FFG. An agressor wouldn't even have to attack the LCS, just sink the tanker hanging around to keep their fuel tanks topped off. Leadfinger and Mule 2 Awards
7Toes Posted December 12, 2015 Member ID: 87 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 58 Topic Count: 98 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3789 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 3589 Achievement Points: 27251 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 7 Joined: 09/02/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: March 18, 2022 Birthday: 04/02/1871 Posted December 12, 2015 i seen a article about there worried about how it handles in rough seas because of its top heaviness? Awards
Spartacus Posted December 12, 2015 Member ID: 1387 Group: *** Clan Members Followers: 30 Topic Count: 52 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2540 Content Per Day: 0.46 Reputation: 2486 Achievement Points: 19555 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/02/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: April 13 Birthday: 06/05/1968 Device: Windows Posted December 12, 2015 It's the Maginot Line Of The High Seas! How expensive? And how much impact? Awards
little_old_man Posted December 12, 2015 Member ID: 1194 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 40 Topic Count: 436 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 6692 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 11691 Achievement Points: 53094 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 76 Joined: 02/27/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: April 16, 2023 Birthday: 04/15/1960 Posted December 12, 2015 Speaking of overpriced things our government does that never work right, the Navy's newest littoral combats ship USS Milwaukee broke down at sea and had to be towed back to port in Virginia while on its way to its new home port of San Diego. http://milwaukee.suntimes.com/mil-news/7/121/247609/uss-milwaukee-breaks-down-at-sea Awards
Spartacus Posted December 15, 2015 Member ID: 1387 Group: *** Clan Members Followers: 30 Topic Count: 52 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2540 Content Per Day: 0.46 Reputation: 2486 Achievement Points: 19555 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/02/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: April 13 Birthday: 06/05/1968 Device: Windows Posted December 15, 2015 Here is a more in depth article on the Hapless USS Milwaukee.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12050630/Americas-newest-battleship-breaks-down-at-sea-after-20-days.html Awards
Leadfinger Posted December 16, 2015 Member ID: 4888 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 56 Topic Count: 69 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2020 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 3795 Achievement Points: 26312 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 01/12/13 Status: Offline Last Seen: July 29, 2023 Birthday: 08/29/1962 Posted December 16, 2015 Our country would be better served if the contractors providing the military with goods and services were more honest. During my years as a contractor I was low bidder on a project to re stripe the lines on the tarmac and runways at March Air force base (reserve). I bid the project just like any other with some padding to cover the extra requirements the contract called for not seen in civilian contracts like special paint, Reflective glass beads (making the paint reflective) ect. After reviewing the competitors bids I was shocked to see how much lower I was than than the next guy above me, my bid was in the $12,000 range and the next lowest bid was somewhere in the low $20,000. I happened to talk with a supervisor of one of the other companies that placed bid on the project I was awarded and he told me I bid it too low and screwed everyone over . . .it seems that is was a ritual to bid these government contracts high because the government would not question the numbers. I was kinda glad I put a "wrench" in their little "screw the government" scam. The job went well and I made a decent profit but being warned not to cross a certain red line for security reasons or have a half dozen MP with M-16's pointed at me was . . . unusual to say the least . . .especially when I had to paint that red line. . . .good times little_old_man, TheLastColdBeer and Blackbart 3 Awards
Bosun Posted December 16, 2015 Member ID: 1445 Group: *** Clan Members Followers: 14 Topic Count: 31 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 737 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 1387 Achievement Points: 5675 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/25/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: 6 hours ago Birthday: 01/23/1963 Device: Windows Posted December 16, 2015 Well @@Leadfinger I think you should have pumped up your price a little maybe. About 2 years ago after a Workplace Health and Safety inspection it was decided that we could only shoot small arms from one specific spot on my ship, one person at a time. The shooting point was to be designated by a yellow square 3 feet x 3 feet painted on the deck. And the quote from the contractor to paint it was $AUD 600 or probably about $USD 500 at the time. So we bought some paint and did it ourselves, of course we got in trouble for it. Should have just wasted the taxpayers money apparently. little_old_man and Blackbart 2 Awards
TheLastColdBeer Posted December 16, 2015 Member ID: 489 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 52 Topic Count: 553 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 4745 Content Per Day: 0.83 Reputation: 6058 Achievement Points: 42053 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 18 Joined: 09/22/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: December 23, 2024 Birthday: 01/09/1963 Device: Android Author Posted December 16, 2015 This is what the LCS was conceived originally, coast guard cutter sized ship, cheap to build, low crew size requirements, and a modular weapons package that could be installed at will, depending on what mission requirements were. This is what the poor thing morphed into. Haven't kept up with the latest developments, but I'm sure the arguments haven't ceased since USS Freedom was on the ways. Too many cooks stirring the pot, @ taxpayers expense. Awards
Blackbart Posted December 16, 2015 Member ID: 51 Group: Fallen Members Followers: 51 Topic Count: 342 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 5974 Content Per Day: 1.04 Reputation: 3766 Achievement Points: 45818 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/01/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: October 27, 2021 Birthday: 06/26/1949 Posted December 16, 2015 Well @@Leadfinger I think you should have pumped up your price a little maybe. About 2 years ago after a Workplace Health and Safety inspection it was decided that we could only shoot small arms from one specific spot on my ship, one person at a time. The shooting point was to be designated by a yellow square 3 feet x 3 feet painted on the deck. And the quote from the contractor to paint it was $AUD 600 or probably about $USD 500 at the time. So we bought some paint and did it ourselves, of course we got in trouble for it. Should have just wasted the taxpayers money apparently. Of course you got in trouble...You screwed some Admirals relative out of the job plus the kickback the Admiral would have got... Awards
Bosun Posted December 16, 2015 Member ID: 1445 Group: *** Clan Members Followers: 14 Topic Count: 31 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 737 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 1387 Achievement Points: 5675 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/25/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: 6 hours ago Birthday: 01/23/1963 Device: Windows Posted December 16, 2015 The original LCS concept was by the British as a replacement for the Type 23 Frigate - however they came up with the trimaran concept and built a 2/3 scale "demonstrator" called the TRITON which they used for research on the design, it then went to the US where the Department of Defense/Navy wired it up with every type of sensor they could find and put it through all sorts of tests. Having done all these tests the concept got a thumbs up from the Navy. Seriously, this thing should be deployed to the best possible use - as a dive wreck. I can only think that no decision maker in the US Navy/DOD actually WENT TO SEA on the damned thing! Here is a pic of where all the unpleasantness started. Awards
TheLastColdBeer Posted December 17, 2015 Member ID: 489 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 52 Topic Count: 553 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 4745 Content Per Day: 0.83 Reputation: 6058 Achievement Points: 42053 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 18 Joined: 09/22/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: December 23, 2024 Birthday: 01/09/1963 Device: Android Author Posted December 17, 2015 LOL, didn't know about the Royal Navy connection to this thing, that wasn't mentioned in Proceedings. The only part I got to read was the USN adventure & ALL the excuses why we just had to have this ship. Makes sense they never talked to anyone who might have to take it to sea what they thought....or wanted. The final straw for me was the "reasoning" that we needed a close in combat ship that could overtake fast inflatables. Huh? Doesn't Ma Deuce beat a rubber dingy by about 2700 fps? All you need is someone in charge to give the order to open fire, problem solved. Leadfinger 1 Awards
Recommended Posts