Skip to main content

View Diary: Navy's $37 Billion "Little Crappy Ships" Littoral Combat Ships "Not Survivable" (192 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The one mission for these is "Gunboat Diplomacy" (16+ / 0-)

    But where? The Mekong? the Tigris/Euphrates Delta? The Yangtze? The Nile? The Congo? The Irrawaddy?

    Somebody at the Department of the Navy has been reading too much Joseph Conrad.

    I imagine these vessels were conceived to provide security for Chevron's near-shore oil operations in Angola.

    Let Chevron pay for them - and let the cost be reflected at the pump.

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
    he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

    by jjohnjj on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 12:52:04 PM PDT

    •  swift boat II. Vulnerable to fire from shore. (10+ / 0-)

      They look like death traps to me.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 12:56:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  One is going to Singapore (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trumpeter, Quicklund, kurt

      for anti-piracy work in the Malacca Straights.

      I could see that as a useful mission for a limited number of these ships but not 84.

    •  Naval Choke Points (7+ / 0-)

      Mostly this class of ship in intended for maritime choke points, like Indonesia, the Phillipines, the Horn of Africa, the Gulf, maybe even the Caribbean.  Those are the areas where the water's shallow, navigable waters are tough to follow, land overlooks most of the water and any opponent can dump all sorts of ordnance onto any ship plying the waters.  The Navy's challenge is:  

      How Do I Show the Flag While Minimizing My Asset Loss When It Comes.
      Clearly, the program cost is defeating the second part of this equation.  Perhaps they should look at just buying large fast freighters and putting all of the offensive capability in the thousands of containers loaded aboard the vessel.  

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 02:22:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  naval drones? n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PrahaPartizan

        Your end of the Constitution is sinking.

        by happymisanthropy on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 06:38:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Shallow water ships need to carry a wide variety (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt

        of armaments of all sorts. Light armor from small caliber weapons is also important, because harassment is common in these conditions.

        The ships are really not suitable for any missions. Even delivering special forces to a hostile coast can't be done with constantly failing diesel engines.  And if they should be spotted, relatively light enemy fire can seriously damage them.

        These are poorly armed for fighting against other ships - even patrol boats and practically unarmed for shore fire. Highly automated, with a small crew, any damage to control systems would render the ship completely vulnerable up against an enemy coast.

        How these are seen as suitable for anything is hard to imagine. At this cost, they should just scrap the program.  

        We could restart building some of our largest Coast Guard cutters, upgrade their armaments, and use them for the same or similar purpose at a fraction of the cost and with  more proven ships.

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:11:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The where is the Persian Gulf (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, JerryNA, PrahaPartizan

      These are not river-going boats like the swift boats. The diary's comparisons are bad.

      These are designed for shallow-water offshore. the entire Persian Gulf is a natural location for such ships. aside from that they'd have a role any time the navy would want to screen against fast raider missile boats operating from shore bases. The problem is, these LC ships have grown almost as big and as expensive as the deep-water ships they were supposed to protect.

      •  But they wouldn't last a second against (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee, kurt, Quicklund

        any nation's missiles.  One hit would do it. And Iran has tons of them. And tons of the little boats which could plug a huge hole in one of these.  They only have one naval gun up front and it is smaller bore than it could be, limiting range.

        The little missile boats could easily swarm and out maneuver them. These ships really are not suitable for anything.

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:17:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  These are not designed for war, but for occupation (0+ / 0-)

      ... stopping and inspecting fishing boats and small merchants, looking for contraband or weapons. They're probably armored to survive hits from small-arms fire and RPGs - nothing bigger.

      With helos and drones they can cover a lot of ocean. But you still need marines in fast rigid-hull inflatables to serve as boarding parties.

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
      he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

      by jjohnjj on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 11:46:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site