U.S. Air Force Aircraft Wearing Down

[CC]

Stravo, roadside bombs aside, the United States cannot afford to have a larger military than it has, so the apporpriate solution is to have overwhelming superiority in firepower and quality of equipment. That's why said weapons are not "unnecessary and wasteful."

But isn't it already overwhlemingly superior? Yes, we obviously have issues with maintenance and upkeep but in the near future is there a reason to keep tooling out the latest and greatest? We've got a military that scares the crap out of most people (save the crazies) and we need to spend more on weapons that do more than the ones that already do a fantastic job?

The problem is that our stuff is old and worn out, so we need new stuff, and preferably state of the art so that when its old and worn out, it's still top of the line. The real problem is that there's so much stupid crap being pushed by the military. The Air Force keeps asking for a suborbital hypersonic B-3 iirc, they're also asking for a Mach 0.9 cruising STOL stealth cargo plane. Army has an absolutely ridiculous FCS thing. The Navy has the LCS problem.The Marines seem to be doing ok, though the Osprey's development was a PITA.

[CC]

Blame the USN. Rather than producing eleventy billion Seawolves, they killed it and then spent precious time and money on a "cheaper" sub, the Virginias, which turned out to cost nearly as much as the Seawolves....great move there, geniuses

Even at the same cost, Virginia looks to be a much better buy. Seawolf is highly impressive for fighting it out in the Atlantic. It's also been almost twenty years since that was a real threat. On the other hand, fighting diesel boats in the littorals has become more of a threat, and the Virginias were designed for that.

[Stuart]

But isn't it already overwhlemingly superior? Yes, we obviously have issues with maintenance and upkeep but in the near future is there a reason to keep tooling out the latest and greatest? We've got a military that scares the crap out of most people (save the crazies) and we need to spend more on weapons that do more than the ones that already do a fantastic job?

This is the same argument that's always turned up every time a new generation of equipment has been introduced. Why buy the M-1 tank when the M-60 is quite adequate and we can upgrade it? (In fact, why buy the M-1 Garand when the M1903 Springfield is a much better bolt action rifle than the Lee Enfield or Mauser?). Why buy the F-16 when the F-4 is still world-class?

The fault is the very obvious one. It's called the Second-Class Battleship fallacy. Back in the dear dead days of the 19th century, there was quite a fad for building second class battleships. The idea was that not everywhere needed the capabilities of a first class battleship and a second class battlehip could be built at less cost yet be quite adequate for those areas. The problem was that with the passage of time, evolving capabilities meant that what were first class battleships became second class battleships and the second class battleships that had been built that way became floating coffins for their crews.

What we have may be adequate now, it won't be in a decade or so's time. Taking the F-15 as a example, its just, only just, capable of holding the line against an Su-30MKI. To maintain our edge, it needs to be replaced, hence the F-22

So I have to ask a simple question of do we really need more? And by more I mean new bleeding edge systems not more of what we already have that works or fixing what's broken which obviously needs to be done.

I hope you can see why by now. It's not a question of what we need in 2007 but in 2017. Using your argument, we'd have today an Air Force that drives F-4 Phantoms and A-7 Corsairs - if we're lucky. (Taking it to extremes, why buy those expensive new F-80 Shooting Stars, the P-51H is perfectly capable of handling the Ta-152C or La-9).

[Lonestar]

A big part of the problem has been that the slow rate of construction has meant that each of the Nimitz-class carriers is signoficantly different from the one preceding it. In reality, there isn't a Nimitz class, there's a series of ten one-ship classes that bear a passing similarity to eachother (an exagerration but not much of one).

I know, that's why I very carefully said "signifigantly modified Nimitz-class"

This has established an incremental development mindset that meant we stayed with the basic Nimitz design far too long. Really, the CVN-68 design represents design concepts that date from the early 1960s - for example the deck and magazine layouts still reflect the considerations of a long-defunct strategic nuclear role and the whole airgroup flow is orientated towards alpha strikes rather than a steady, sustained rate of smaller missions. Building more CVN-68s was the low-cost option, sooner or later we had to bite the bullet and move towards a design more optimized for today's requirements. We should have done it in the early 1990s, we didn't. Now, we're paying the cost.

I think we're arguing whether that shade of red is maroon or brick red.

The question is, why chase dhows with an over-priced, over-powered speedboat? The problem is that the requirement itself, to operate in the littoral regions in relatively low-intensity tasks, actually exists LCS though was promoted as the solution to that requirement not because it was actually a solution to it but because it was pushed by the "small and goes fast" constituency. In The Business, LCS is known as "Lynch Cebrowski Slowly" or "Let's Castrate Streetfighter". An example; if we want to chase Dhows, do we really need a US$400 million speedboat? The Australians do quite nicely with an Armidale class PC costing a tenth of that.

Because if the USN does not have any smaller patrol boats in the pipeline, I'd rather we utilize the less resource-intensive vessel than a larger smallboy. Personally, I think we could do with more PCs. I know they have problems, but they are small and are able to deploy across the ocean without being carried somewhere(my old LPO rode one over from Little Creek during the run up to OIF...so I know it's technically possible, if a pain in the ass for the crews).

(Sidebar: Whenever our VBSS team visited a dhow the "simple fishermen" would bitch and moan about the Singaporeans...they had one of their LPDs out there, and apperently they were quite a bit less polite than us)

And if we want to shoot up Dhows at a distance, why not used an armed helicopter?

That's easy. (1)Contrary to what certain folks may think, we don't run around just shooting up civilian vessels/cars/horsewagons from the air.
(2)No dhow is going to outrun a RHIB in any event, and
(3)we really need to board and search every single one of those motherfuckers in the Northern Arabian Sea.

Is anybody going to attack one of our convoys? And if they are, what with?

I was thinking more in the context of a "Tanker War" scenario, not "escort convoys full of material to Western Europe".

That's the problem. If a low-capability threat is out there, it isn't going to be tangling with a convoy, if somebody is going to tangle with a convoy, they aren't going to use low capability threats.

Again, the scenario I had in mind was something like the Tanker War, not the Battle of the Atlantic.

As for counter-smuggling, an FF is the wrong ship, we're back to PCs again. Have a look at the Italian Fulgosi class OPVs; they're good anti-smuggling ships but FFs they're not.

Because, if we have no PC programs in the pipeline, then it really should go to the next "less capable" ship. Which would be something like an FF or LCS.

Really, the urge to "replace the FFGs" comes froma perception, we've got some, they're wearing out, we need to buy more and avoids the question "what for?". The US Navy looked at that back in the early 1990s and then decided that they weren't going to replace the FFGs because a repalcement that was effective would virtually be an Arleigh Burke and why build a ship that wasn't effective. To give you another example, look at the Spanish F-100 Alvaro de Bazan. That's very much an FFG replacement.

Not really. I mean, we've specifically downgraded our FFG's capabilities to the point where they would more properly be called FFs, right? So it seems that the intent is that the FFGs would be for low-intensity/MIO stuff. Again, I agree that PCs would be a better choice but there is no such program in the pipeline, correct? So it makes more sense to utilize these FF's and their potential replacements(which I'm sure you know would be a better sale to certain congressional members than "we can use a whole buncha inexpensive boats to accomplish the stuff CTF-50 has been doing for years with larger and more expensive stuff")

Oh, I do, I've read the same reports. However, the latest one almost spells out the continued problems are due to command failure in enforcing an adequate rectification program. There is no excuse for live cables left lying around unconnected. I'm not quite sure what went wrong with the initial build on LPD-17, something really screwed up there (it happens from time to time even in the best shipyards - viz Thomas S Gates and Oregon City). However, LPD-18 and LPD-19 are very much better.

My thoughts on shipyards are somewhat clouded by personal expierience in dealing with yardworkers and the "fruits of their labors", so you'll excuse me if I maintain a healthy amount of pessimism

It should be; if not I'll dig you out a copy.

Maybe when I get off shift, I really shouldn't be surfing anyway.

One of the reasons that DDG-1000 is being squeezed is that its development is becoming telescoped with CG(X) and is becoming increasingly regarded as a development test-bed for CG(X). The argument goes, we've got lots of destroyers (more than were planned), why build more when we can jump straight to CG(X) that we need a lot more (and then we hit the argument about CGN(X). So really, the DDG-1000 slashback is a measure of the need for CG(X) rather than the reverse.

I hope you're right. Frankly, as I commented over in the "Peak Oil" thread, it would be in America's interest to return nuclear power to our surface combatants.

<snip because I feel that it's been covered by the previous quote>

But what is the mission for the SSN fleet? We have protecting the SSBNs, intel gathering, special missions (a few others) that more or less justify the present force level. The massive ASW mission that configured the SSN fleet in the 1960s through to the late 1980s has gone away so what takes it's place? We can surge to four SSNs per year if we really had to but I can think of a lot better uses for the US$10 billion that will cost per year - like buying more aircraft.

That's also easy...maintain construction so we can maintain the expertise

At the moment, even one DDG and one CG is a pretty deadly combination compared with screens in past years (we can't do it here but add up the fire channels they have between them and compare that to a 1980s style screen).

Conceded.

The horrible fact is that an Arleigh Burke, on her own, could shoot down the entire air force of most countries without even breaking into a sweat. The CG could just watch and cheer her on.

Of course, less guys watching the screens leads to higher probability of user error.

Overhead on the net during watch.
*sonic boom! Sonic Boom!*

Bridge: CIC, what're the tracking numbers on those jets that overflew us?
CIC: What jets?

If a really serious threat emerges, we've got the assets to beef the screens up quite quickly.

You referring to former CNO Clark's "1,000 ship fleet-in-being"?

[MKSheppard]

Stravo, the F-15, M-1 Abrams, CG-47, F-16, M-2 Bradley (even the B-52) were all bleeding edge technology when they were introduced. That's why they're still useful now. If they hadn't been bleeding edge then, they'd be scrap now.

In each and every case, there's always been a motion that "what we have is just good enough", by cost cutters and anti-military activists whenever a major new weapons system comes along:

M-1 Abrams: Surely not, we can just upgrade our M-60s with reactive armor instead of buying heavily overpriced M-1s full of shiny new stuff which we don't need!

M-2 Bradley: An overpriced vehicle, the M113 will do just fine for 1/10th the cost; and why do we need TOW, Thermal Sights, and 25mm cannon for a battlefield taxi? (See the Pentagon Wars HBO movie for this)

F-15: We don't need this! We have plenty of F-4 Phantoms which can do the job, with upgrades!

F-16: Not so sure if anyone opposed it.

Nowadays it's:

F-22: We don't need this! We have plenty of F-15s! (nevermind they're 30 years old now...)

Stuart no doubt can fill me in on some of the opposition's talk concerning stuff like CG-47, DDG-51, et al which I really wasn't following.

[MKSheppard]

That's also easy...maintain construction so we can maintain the expertise

Oh this I agree with 2,000%

Electric Boat for all it's faults is quite possibly the world's finest submarine construction yard; and if we let them go out of business because we weren't feeding them a SSN or two each year; the money we'd save from not building any SSNs for 8 years would be dwarfed by the HUGE cost of having to completely rebuild our capability at EB once everyone who knows anything is let go in downsizing etc.

[Vympel]

M-2 Bradley: An overpriced vehicle, the M113 will do just fine for 1/10th the cost; and why do we need TOW, Thermal Sights, and 25mm cannon for a battlefield taxi? (See the Pentagon Wars HBO movie for this)

The Pentagon Wars was of course a highly fictionalized albeit fucking hilarious indictment of the military procurement shenanigans that plague the US defense establishment- the main thrust of the movie was it's inadequate protection (ie. the end when it finally spectacularly explodes at the live-fire demonstration) as well as the sweetheart cushy contractor jobs that officers try to get after their service is up.

Note: they didn't mention thermal sights in the film at all.

[Lonestar]

The Air Force keeps asking for a suborbital hypersonic B-3 iirc,

Actually, the next Bomber is more likely to be another "Bomb truck"

Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
May 2, 2007

Next Decade's AF Bomber To Be Subsonic, Manned, General Says


The U.S. Air Force's long-range strike aircraft set to be deployed by 2018 will be subsonic and manned, said Brig. Gen. Mark Matthews, director of plans and programs, headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Va.

But it would be wrong to characterize the aircraft as being entirely devoid of current technology, Matthews said May 1 during a panel discussion "Return of the Bomber: The Future of Long Range Strike," presented by the Eaker Institute, the research arm of the Air Force Association (AFA).

"There is new technology associated with this," Matthews said.

For example, the Air Force is looking at technological advancements in low observability, sensors and engine development, he said.

The 2018 deadline for a new bomber aircraft was set by the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) to address a perceived gap in strike capability.

In later years, the Air Force is slated to procure and deploy more advanced bombers. The service is looking now at some directed energy technology to make the aircraft more survivable, Matthews said.

For now, the Air Force must concentrate on developing an aircraft that can penetrate enemy territory and persist and survive there long enough to deliver an effective payload. To do that, Matthews said, the service had to make tradeoffs. One of those was the supersonic speed.

"Id love to have the world," he said. "But I can't afford the world."

And the Air Force can't afford to lose a new bomber to such things as crosswinds or dynamic flight conditions. The technology just isn't there yet for an unmanned aircraft to meet the necessary criteria, said retired Gen. Gregory Martin, another panel member.

However, Matthews said there is still room for "optionally manned" possibilities.

One option that is likely not on the table, according to "Return of the Bomber: The Future of Long Range Strike," an AFA special report, is an FB-22, or F-22 Raptor bomber variant.

"The QDR-backed move to build a 2018 capability signaled the end of the FB-22 initiative, at least in its old form," said report author Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Independent Research Inc., in Washington, D.C.

The Air Force could revisit an F-22 variant plan, Grant wrote. "But, for now, that's separate from the 2018 bomber."

-- Michael Fabey

But isn't it already overwhlemingly superior? Yes, we obviously have issues with maintenance and upkeep but in the near future is there a reason to keep tooling out the latest and greatest? We've got a military that scares the crap out of most people (save the crazies) and we need to spend more on weapons that do more than the ones that already do a fantastic job?

Mr. Slade already answered, but I'll go ahead and reiterate: Yes. Yes we do. If we were to another major landwar, the betting odds are that the opposition is going to be able to muster more troops locally than we could, so our equipment and training not only has to be better, but overwhelmingly so. If we end up fighting a country whose air force does more than sitting on the Tarmac praying we miss, then our air assets need to be of higher quality and training. It's in the interests of other countries to buy extrmely fast anti-ship missiles, so it's in our interest to dump money into the latest iteration fo the SLQ-32.

Ask the British what happens when you try to go to war with "good enough" equipment.(Hint: You lose multiple ships to some Banana Republic down South.)

[MKSheppard]

Note: they didn't mention thermal sights in the film at all.

Thermal Sights back then were a significant cost in the "sticker price", back in the 1980s, it cost like $400k for the Thermal sights on the M1, and that took up a significant fraction of the M-1's $1 million or $1.5 million cost...it's been a while since I read that factoid.

[Vympel]

Related more closely to the OP:

A little article on why the C-130J sucks arse.

United Press International had a little story yesterday on the C-130J Hercules, an aircraft that has been arguably pushed down the Air Force’s throat over the years by powerful lawmakers with jobs and votes on the line.

The UPI story took the Lockheed/Air Force nugget hook line and sinker…

The delivery of the 150th U.S. C-130J cargo plane this week was used to illustrate the aircraft's achievements during "high-tempo" operations in Iraq.

Lockheed Martin turned over the plane to a California Air National Guard unit that flew more than 5,400 sorties during a recent deployment to Iraq.

Lockheed said in a statement Wednesday that the record compiled by the 146th Airlift Wing's four C-130Js was made possible by the new plane's advanced capabilities…

…During its 20 months in Iraq, the Oxnard-based 146th flew 5,444 sorties, totaling 10,750 hours, that delivered more than 70,000 passengers and 12,681 tons of cargo, Lockheed said. The C-130J is being used on a daily basis for supply and troop transport missions.

These data mean each C-130J flew, on average, 2.3 sorties per day. Very mediocre, even for a modern complexified version, such as the C-130J.

Each sortie was, on average, 2 hours long. Sounds like these were hops from Kuwait.

Tonnage for each sortie was a whopping 2.3 tons, on average, plus 13 passengers. I’m amazed they let this data out pretending it was impressive. Actually, it’s grounds for a fleet retirement.

It’s a good thing they weren’t competing with C-47s (DC-3s) as per the Berlin airlift; they would have been deeply embarrassed.

These data support a unique assertion: Wolfowitz was right about something. In December 2005, he tried to kill the C-130J program. As in most things, his effort was a feckless failure.

Remember: the C-130J increased aircraft unit price from the C-130H from about $20 million per copy to about $60 million. More money apparently means less capability.

How can you fuck up something as simple as an upgraded Hercules, I ask?

[Ma Deuce]

In each and every case, there's always been a motion that "what we have is just good enough", by cost cutters and anti-military activists whenever a major new weapons system comes along

Wasn't the much-venerated David Hackworth one of the leading voices of the "what we have is good enough" camp, personally opposing many of the weapon systems mentioned here? I found it funny then that he liked the XM8 rifle: I remember that column he wrote about what a piece of shit the M16 was and how the XM8 would be so much better, yet over half his complaints related to the the 5.56mm cartridge (which is ironic given that there was zero possibility the regular-issue M8 would be chambered for anything but 5.56mm)

[Vympel]

Thermal Sights back then were a significant cost in the "sticker price", back in the 1980s, it cost like $400k for the Thermal sights on the M1, and that took up a significant fraction of the M-1's $1 million or $1.5 million cost...it's been a while since I read that factoid.

Funny considering that right up until the M1A2SEP the M60A3TTS had a superior thermal sight to the M1, by all accounts. Maybe the M60A3TTS should've been seen as "good enough" after all

[MKSheppard]

How can you fuck up something as simple as an upgraded Hercules, I ask?

The C-130 family is at the edge of it's expansion capabilities; I mean you've already upgraded it as far as you can go without changing it so dramatically that it's no longer a C-130 but a new aircraft.

Really, we should have just bought either the YC-14 or YC-15 back in the 1970s; they would have MASSIVELY improved on the C-130....and made the Stryker much less crappy.

[Stuart]

I think we're arguing whether that shade of red is maroon or brick red.

True, but there are certain things you and I take for granted that other people may not be aware of (no offense meant to anybody).

Because if the USN does not have any smaller patrol boats in the pipeline, I'd rather we utilize the less resource-intensive vessel than a larger smallboy. Personally, I think we could do with more PCs. I know they have problems, but they are small and are able to deploy across the ocean without being carried somewhere(my old LPO rode one over from Little Creek during the run up to OIF...so I know it's technically possible, if a pain in the ass for the crews).

But doesn't that offer a much better solution than a $400 million speedboat? To whit a vessel like an LPD that acts as a mother ship for PCs? Buy Armidales from the Australians - a fully stabilized 25mm gun and plenty of endurance. If it comes to rough stuff, a helicopter deck and hangar with four AH-64s.

Whenever our VBSS team visited a dhow the "simple fishermen" would bitch and moan about the Singaporeans...they had one of their LPDs out there, and apperently they were quite a bit less polite than us

So I've heard. The intensity of anti-Moslem feeling in that part of the world is very strong.

That's easy. (1)Contrary to what certain folks may think, we don't run around just shooting up civilian vessels/cars/horsewagons from the air.

Again, true, but I was thinking of the much-postulated swarming attacks by Boston Whalers and their ilk. The LCS has been posed as a counter to such attacks.

No dhow is going to outrun a RHIB in any event

Agreed

we really need to board and search every single one of them in the Northern Arabian Sea.

Which implies a very low-cost unit. Not the LCS or a frigate.

I was thinking more in the context of a "Tanker War" scenario, not "escort convoys full of material to Western Europe".

Even then we have to work out what the threat profile is. If its randomly-laid minefields, an escort won;t do any good at all - in fact during the previous etanker escort job, it ended up with the FFGs having to shelter behind the tankers (a tanker could take a mine hit that would send an FFG to the bottom). If its swarming attacks, helicopters are a better solution than a frigate. The danger of a frigate is that it gets used because its there, not because its suitable.

Because, if we have no PC programs in the pipeline, then it really should go to the next "less capable" ship. Which would be something like an FF or LCS.

But, neither are suitable for, and both are overpriced for the job. Unless we consider the LCS as a frigate, there isn't a frigate (FFG replacement) in the program. Why add one when we know its no use for the job? But something that is useful instead (like Coast Guard cutters),

Not really. I mean, we've specifically downgraded our FFG's capabilities to the point where they would more properly be called FFs, right? So it seems that the intent is that the FFGs would be for low-intensity/MIO stuff.

The FFGs were downgraded because the Mark 13 system on them was unsupportable. They're not even FFs now, they're OPVs at best. There was no intent there, it was appreciation that their primary weapon was useless.

Again, I agree that PCs would be a better choice but there is no such program in the pipeline, correct?

Correct

So it makes more sense to utilize these FF's and their potential replacements(which I'm sure you know would be a better sale to certain congressional members than "we can use a whole buncha inexpensive boats to accomplish the stuff CTF-50 has been doing for years with larger and more expensive stuff")

Not correct. It makes sense to use the hull life of the surviving Perrys up because they're there, we have them and they're better than nothing. Replacing them doesn't make any sense. On the FFG level we would end up with an Arleigh Burke (again, look at the F-100), on the OPV level, an FFG replacement is ludicrous overkill. We should be buying patrol ships I agree (who should operate them is another matter) but there's no point in replacing the Perry's because we don't need ships in that category.

My thoughts on shipyards are somewhat clouded by personal expirience in dealing with yardworkers and the "fruits of their labors", so you'll excuse me if I maintain a healthy amount of pessimism.

Yardbirds are something quite else aren't they.

I hope you're right. Frankly, as I commented over in the "Peak Oil" thread, it would be in America's interest to return nuclear power to our surface combatants.

There's a good strategic case to be made for nuclear power, especially as we're going to a deployment mode that sees us swapping out the crews of ships on-station.

That's also easy...maintain construction so we can maintain the expertise

Which is what we're doing. Keeping two yards working at minimum support level and eating the extra cost.

Of course, less guys watching the screens leads to higher probability of user error. Overhead on the net during watch. *sonic boom! Sonic Boom!* Bridge: CIC, what're the tracking numbers on those jets that overflew us? CIC: What jets?

True, but then screw ups happen no matter how many eyes are on screen. In fact there is some evidence that suggests, the fewer eyes on screen the better. One guy watching screens and he's told, "if you screw up, we're all dead", he watches intently. Have twenty guys watching screens and every one of them thinks "there's nineteen other guys watching, I can goof off"

I can beat your sonic boom story. INS Prahar collided witha merchantman off Goa a year ago and was dragged along for twenty minutes before sinking. Nobody on the Prahar noticed until water was flooding into the CIC. Nobody on the merchantman noticed until some very wet Indian Naval officers pulled themselves over the guardrail and tried to strangle the deckwatch.

In asset terms, I was referring to yard capacity. We're running at a low ebb at the moment but we can build a lot faster. We could probably jack up to a CVN every other year and four SSNs and eight to ten DDGs very quickly. We could go beyond that but it would get progressively more expensive.

[Sea Skimmer]

How can you fuck up something as simple as an upgraded Hercules, I ask?

The C-130’s cargo load is far more often limited by bulk, especially when delivering palletized cargo, then by weight. This is why several models of C-130 have been offered in stretched configurations which actually have lower maximum payloads. In any case, it sounds like the squadron was being used as a sort of on call courier service, to fly critical items to forward based as quickly as possible. 2 tons of blood is a rather worthwhile cargo don’t you think? But maybe they should have waited until they could fill up the rest of the plane with howitzer shells? Such a simplistic analyst as being presented is meaningless.

It’s also nice to see that they flew in Iraq at all, as they originally had a trouble with the propeller delaminating in sandy conditions.

The plane is very expensive, which is why the USAF curtailed its production contract. It was devoloped BTW as a private venture, not under a military contract. A fair bit of the difference should in the long run be made up by greatly reduced maintaince costs. They went from an all analog aircraft with a thousand pounds of copper wire for controls to an all digital plane completely wired and programmed for self test.

[Omega18]

Bottem line? We have one(1) vessel that is anywhere near completion, and I think that LockMart's class is gonna be cancelled(The USN finally tired of the "add 12 layers of management to any and all cost-plus contracts") .

The GD model has problems of it's own, and I suspect that construction is not along far enough for it to run out and smack the USN in the face with them. Eventually, the USN is gonna say "do we want to spend $400mil for a spiffy-looking missile-less frigate?" and the answer, I think, will be "no."

Incidently, the two LCS units you refer too are the GD units that were gonna be bought as a test run anyway.

This has mostly been covered, but you're basically incorrect here.

The Lockheed Martin ship design may be canceled, but at least the first one is close to completion. The keel of the General Dynamics USS Independence was laid back in January of 06, by comparison the LCS USS Freedom was laid back in June of 2005, so its not that far behind at this point. While the plan was for to be build as part of the "test run" to see what model is better, these are ships which are definitely going to get used.

While the LCS may not be ideal, it gets the job done for some key US needs in my view. We really don't need more antiship missile armed ships with the rest of the fleet fine for that role, the LCS can handle the crucial role of ASW duties along with the mine hunter version talked about, it also can be used in role of things like anti-piracy patrols. Unless the General Dynamics version gets allot more expensive, I suspect anything the US would realistically build in its place would end up costing more by the time you fact in the costs of a new program.

[Lonestar]

This has mostly been covered, but you're basically incorrect here.

The Lockheed Martin ship design may be canceled, but at least the first one is close to completion. The keel of the General Dynamics USS Independence was laid back in January of 06, by comparison the LCS USS Freedom was laid back in June of 2005, so its not that far behind at this point. While the plan was for to be build as part of the "test run" to see what model is better, these are ships which are definitely going to get used.

Thanks Dad, one would think I haven't be following the program with interest lo these many years. What with it being extremely germane to my job and all.


Incidently, The "test run" is obviously a crock if we're going to only have one (damaged) operational Lockheed Model versus two operational GD models.

While the LCS may not be ideal, it gets the job done for some key US needs in my view. We really don't need more antiship missile armed ships with the rest of the fleet fine for that role, the LCS can handle the crucial role of ASW duties along with the mine hunter version talked about, it also can be used in role of things like anti-piracy patrols. Unless the General Dynamics version gets allot more expensive, I suspect anything the US would realistically build in its place would end up costing more by the time you fact in the costs of a new program.

So, have you actually been reading Stuart's and myself's posts? I must have repeated, 3 or 4 Goddamn times that I agree that a PC is a better option for the probable uses of an LCS. Might primary disagreement with Mr. Slade is that there is not a PC program in the pipeline, and that the USN has a history of thinking big for all the problems.

And by the way, the USN is going to have cross-deck training like nothing else for this thing, and will be so undermanned that repair lockers will not even be manned up during GQ. So you'll excuse me if I am not anticipating a particularly efficient crew such a monstrosity will produce. As soon as the USN's Surface Warfare Magazine site removes it's head from it's rectum I'll pull the articles in question from it.

But doesn't that offer a much better solution than a $400 million speedboat? To whit a vessel like an LPD that acts as a mother ship for PCs? Buy Armidales from the Australians - a fully stabilized 25mm gun and plenty of endurance. If it comes to rough stuff, a helicopter deck and hangar with four AH-64s.

Alright, once more we're arguing different shades, I think. I completely agree that a PC would be a better buy for the purposes of MIO. I just do not think that the USN or Congress would ever seriously pursue it, so and LCS(or something like it) would be the tool we would use.

So I've heard. The intensity of anti-Moslem feeling in that part of the world is very strong.

Even worse, we get there and the simple fishermen have a gaggle of PSYOP stuff from previous visitors...in French.

Again, true, but I was thinking of the much-postulated swarming attacks by Boston Whalers and their ilk. The LCS has been posed as a counter to such attacks

Bah. Other smallboys can defend themselves just fine from "zodiac swarms". (And Revolutionary Guards Jet skis with RPGs!)

Which implies a very low-cost unit. Not the LCS or a frigate

I fell as if we're going around in circles

Even then we have to work out what the threat profile is. If its randomly-laid minefields, an escort won;t do any good at all - in fact during the previous etanker escort job, it ended up with the FFGs having to shelter behind the tankers (a tanker could take a mine hit that would send an FFG to the bottom). If its swarming attacks, helicopters are a better solution than a frigate. The danger of a frigate is that it gets used because its there, not because its suitable.

Ah, but wouldn't the LCS both have an minesweeping capability and a Helicopter? (I'm dubious of the "modules", but I'd like to hear your view on it)

The FFGs were downgraded because the Mark 13 system on them was unsupportable. They're not even FFs now, they're OPVs at best. There was no intent there, it was appreciation that their primary weapon was useless.

I understand that there are some Poles and Bahrainis who may still need to be support.

Sidebar: Coworker was an engineer on one of the FFGs handed over to the Poles. They basically trained the Polish crew, and towards the end they grew so frustrated at the difficulty the Poles were having grasping what was thought to be "really simple shit"(I think he was a GSE, so his area was more localized)that when it was formally handed over there was a complete expectation on the part of the USN crew of imminent disaster.

It makes sense to use the hull life of the surviving Perrys up because they're there, we have them and they're better than nothing. Replacing them doesn't make any sense. On the FFG level we would end up with an Arleigh Burke (again, look at the F-100), on the OPV level, an FFG replacement is ludicrous overkill. We should be buying patrol ships I agree (who should operate them is another matter) but there's no point in replacing the Perry's because we don't need ships in that category.

I was thinking in terms of certain congressional leaders who would push for larger ships, because they would be more likely to be built at our main yards, rather than smaller PCs which can be literally assembled in Arkansas, put on the Mississippi, and be sent on it's way.

I can beat your sonic boom story. INS Prahar collided witha merchantman off Goa a year ago and was dragged along for twenty minutes before sinking. Nobody on the Prahar noticed until water was flooding into the CIC. Nobody on the merchantman noticed until some very wet Indian Naval officers pulled themselves over the guardrail and tried to strangle the deckwatch.

One of these days, I gotta tell you my Iranian P-3 and the F/A-18s story.

In asset terms, I was referring to yard capacity. We're running at a low ebb at the moment but we can build a lot faster. We could probably jack up to a CVN every other year and four SSNs and eight to ten DDGs very quickly. We could go beyond that but it would get progressively more expensive.

Oh good. I was worried you were referring to the combined allied "fleet in being", of course the Eye-talians would have to be written off because they have trouble scaring up funds to even leave port...that and the ships we interacted with, didn't.

[Wanderer]

One of these days, I gotta tell you my Iranian P-3 and the F/A-18s story.

That wouldn't happen to be a June 8, 2002. I was going through ACIG's archives and have found several close encounters not only with P-3s, but also with IRIAF F-14s and F-4s.

[FSTargetDrone]

One of these days, I gotta tell you my Iranian P-3 and the F/A-18s story.

Gah! This is a fascinating discussion to be following and you're going to leave us hanging with something like that?? Details please, good sir!

[PainRack]

(Sidebar: Whenever our VBSS team visited a dhow the "simple fishermen" would bitch and moan about the Singaporeans...they had one of their LPDs out there, and apperently they were quite a bit less polite than us)

???What we do????

[PainRack]

Whenever our VBSS team visited a dhow the "simple fishermen" would bitch and moan about the Singaporeans...they had one of their LPDs out there, and apperently they were quite a bit less polite than us

So I've heard. The intensity of anti-Moslem feeling in that part of the world is very strong.

I doubt it would be anything related to anti-muslim feelings, but rather force protection.

To put it simply, our government sidebarred the Iraq war past us, declaring our support for the US as a "hidden" member of the Coalition of the Willing before deciding to commit to it in public and then sending military forces.There was no debate whatsoever in Parliament and I do believe it was the only time in this decade,possibly in even the last two decades where a foreign political issue caused any form of protest and outcry.

Support for the war thus ranged on the fact that no body bags came home. Considering the current shitstorm being raised over the Taiwanese aircrash, one can imagine the kind of PR nightmare any body bag from Iraq would have meant.