Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  The LCS was too rushed as a project. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, KenBee, kurt

    The Navy pushed too hard for this, redefined the missions and capabilities too often, and I feel they could have achieved what they wanted with far less pain.

    This armchair petty officer would ask why the Navy did not elect to talk to America's littoral sea experts, the Coast Guard? The Guard has been doing this mission since 1790, this is it's original bread and butter. Why the Navy felt they had to re-invent the wheel is beyond me. They actually tried to do Coast Guard missions in the 1930's, failed dramatically, and hurriedly returned both ships and crews to the Guard's command.

    There is no possible excuse for this program to be in the shape it is today. The MIC needed a fix, and this looked to be one that might last a little while. No mas! Scrap them now, save the money. Give it to the Guard for new, quality ships that won't break and will have long lives. Get the aerospace and defense people out of it, and let real shipbuilders and designers do it for the Guard, and then let the Guard run those missions with the Navy, just like it is supposed to do.

    Yes, the Guard has had it's problems the last few years, mostly due to political pressures and a major sea change in philosophy (for the worse, in my estimation), but it's still better than the Navy for doing this job.

    Ex-RM2, USCG, 1976-1982.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site