Chinese laughing at and looking down on Super Expensive and Useless US Navy LCS @ US$480M tiny weak flimsy powerless! Pulverized by1 missile!

[Ang4MohTrump]

http://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/h/slide_8_198_70837.html#p=1

不必将其放在眼中！美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰服役

支持 键翻阅图片 列表查看

全屏观看
2019.03.12 11:22:19

• 

1 / 14
2019年3月2日，美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰查尔斯顿号加入美国海军现役，该舰将驻扎在圣地亚哥港。

不必将其放在眼中！美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰服役

支持 键翻阅图片 列表查看

全屏观看
2019.03.12 11:22:19

• 
  
• 

2 / 14
2019年3月2日，美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰查尔斯顿号加入美国海军现役，该舰将驻扎在圣地亚哥港。

不必将其放在眼中！美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰服役

支持 键翻阅图片 列表查看

全屏观看
2019.03.12 11:22:19

• 
  
• 
  
• 

3 / 14
2019年3月2日，美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰查尔斯顿号加入美国海军现役，该舰将驻扎在圣地亚哥港。

不必将其放在眼中！美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰服役

支持 键翻阅图片 列表查看

全屏观看
2019.03.12 11:22:19

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 

4 / 14
2019年3月2日，美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰查尔斯顿号加入美国海军现役，该舰将驻扎在圣地亚哥港。

不必将其放在眼中！美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰服役

支持 键翻阅图片 列表查看

全屏观看
2019.03.12 11:22:19

• 

5 / 14
2019年3月2日，美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰查尔斯顿号加入美国海军现役，该舰将驻扎在圣地亚哥港。

不必将其放在眼中！美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰服役

支持 键翻阅图片 列表查看

全屏观看
2019.03.12 11:22:19

• 

6 / 14
2019年3月2日，美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰查尔斯顿号加入美国海军现役，该舰将驻扎在圣地亚哥港。
不必将其放在眼中！美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰服役

支持 键翻阅图片 列表查看

全屏观看
2019.03.12 11:22:19

• 
  
• 

7 / 14
2019年3月2日，美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰查尔斯顿号加入美国海军现役，该舰将驻扎在圣地亚哥港。

不必将其放在眼中！美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰服役

支持 键翻阅图片 列表查看

全屏观看
2019.03.12 11:22:19

• 

8 / 14
2019年3月2日，美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰查尔斯顿号加入美国海军现役，该舰将驻扎在圣地亚哥港。

不必将其放在眼中！美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰服役

支持 键翻阅图片 列表查看

全屏观看
2019.03.12 11:22:19

• 

9 / 14
2019年3月2日，美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰查尔斯顿号加入美国海军现役，该舰将驻扎在圣地亚哥港
不必将其放在眼中！美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰服役

支持 键翻阅图片 列表查看

全屏观看
2019.03.12 11:22:19

• 

10 / 14
2019年3月2日，美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰查尔斯顿号加入美国海军现役，该舰将驻扎在圣地亚哥港。

不必将其放在眼中！美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰服役

支持 键翻阅图片 列表查看

全屏观看
2019.03.12 11:22:19

• 

11 / 14
2019年3月2日，美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰查尔斯顿号加入美国海军现役，该舰将驻扎在圣地亚哥港。

不必将其放在眼中！美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰服役

支持 键翻阅图片 列表查看

全屏观看
2019.03.12 11:22:19

• 

12 / 14
2019年3月2日，美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰查尔斯顿号加入美国海军现役，该舰将驻扎在圣地亚哥港。


不必将其放在眼中！美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰服役

支持 键翻阅图片 列表查看

全屏观看
2019.03.12 11:22:19

• 

13 / 14
2019年3月2日，美国海军第18艘濒海战斗舰查尔斯顿号加入美国海军现役，该舰将驻扎在圣地亚哥港。

Http://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/h/slide_8_198_70837.html#p=1


Don't have to put it in your eyes! Service of the 18th Inmarsional Battleship of the US Navy


Support button flip through pictures list view

Full screen view
2019.03.12 11:22:19






1 / 14
On March 2, 2019, the US Navy's 18th Littoral Combat Ship Charleston joined the US Navy in active service, and the ship will be stationed at the Port of Santiago.


Don't have to put it in your eyes! Service of the 18th Inmarsional Battleship of the US Navy


Support button flip through pictures list view

Full screen view
2019.03.12 11:22:19








2 / 14
On March 2, 2019, the US Navy's 18th Littoral Combat Ship Charleston joined the US Navy in active service, and the ship will be stationed at the Port of Santiago.


Don't have to put it in your eyes! Service of the 18th Inmarsional Battleship of the US Navy


Support button flip through pictures list view

Full screen view
2019.03.12 11:22:19









3 / 14
On March 2, 2019, the US Navy's 18th Littoral Combat Ship Charleston joined the US Navy in active service, and the ship will be stationed at the Port of Santiago.


Don't have to put it in your eyes! Service of the 18th Inmarsional Battleship of the US Navy


Support button flip through pictures list view

Full screen view
2019.03.12 11:22:19








4 / 14
On March 2, 2019, the US Navy's 18th Littoral Combat Ship Charleston joined the US Navy in active service, and the ship will be stationed at the Port of Santiago.


Don't have to put it in your eyes! Service of the 18th Inmarsional Battleship of the US Navy


Support button flip through pictures list view

Full screen view
2019.03.12 11:22:19




5 / 14
On March 2, 2019, the US Navy's 18th Littoral Combat Ship Charleston joined the US Navy in active service, and the ship will be stationed at the Port of Santiago.


Don't have to put it in your eyes! Service of the 18th Inmarsional Battleship of the US Navy


Support button flip through pictures list view

Full screen view
2019.03.12 11:22:19





6 / 14
On March 2, 2019, the US Navy's 18th Littoral Combat Ship Charleston joined the US Navy in active service, and the ship will be stationed at the Port of Santiago.
Don't have to put it in your eyes! Service of the 18th Inmarsional Battleship of the US Navy


Support button flip through pictures list view

Full screen view
2019.03.12 11:22:19






7 / 14
On March 2, 2019, the US Navy's 18th Littoral Combat Ship Charleston joined the US Navy in active service, and the ship will be stationed at the Port of Santiago.


Don't have to put it in your eyes! Service of the 18th Inmarsional Battleship of the US Navy


Support button flip through pictures list view

Full screen view
2019.03.12 11:22:19





8 / 14
On March 2, 2019, the US Navy's 18th Littoral Combat Ship Charleston joined the US Navy in active service, and the ship will be stationed at the Port of Santiago.


Don't have to put it in your eyes! Service of the 18th Inmarsional Battleship of the US Navy


Support button flip through pictures list view

Full screen view
2019.03.12 11:22:19



9 / 14
On March 2, 2019, the US Navy’s 18th Littoral Combat Ship Charleston joined the US Navy in active service. The ship will be stationed at the Port of San Diego.
Don't have to put it in your eyes! Service of the 18th Inmarsional Battleship of the US Navy


Support button flip through pictures list view

Full screen view
2019.03.12 11:22:19




10 / 14
On March 2, 2019, the US Navy's 18th Littoral Combat Ship Charleston joined the US Navy in active service, and the ship will be stationed at the Port of Santiago.


Don't have to put it in your eyes! Service of the 18th Inmarsional Battleship of the US Navy


Support button flip through pictures list view

Full screen view
2019.03.12 11:22:19





11 / 14
On March 2, 2019, the US Navy's 18th Littoral Combat Ship Charleston joined the US Navy in active service, and the ship will be stationed at the Port of Santiago.


Don't have to put it in your eyes! Service of the 18th Inmarsional Battleship of the US Navy


Support button flip through pictures list view

Full screen view
2019.03.12 11:22:19




12 / 14
On March 2, 2019, the US Navy's 18th Littoral Combat Ship Charleston joined the US Navy in active service, and the ship will be stationed at the Port of Santiago.



Don't have to put it in your eyes! Service of the 18th Inmarsional Battleship of the US Navy


Support button flip through pictures list view

Full screen view
2019.03.12 11:22:19


13 / 14
On March 2, 2019, the US Navy’s 18th Littoral Combat Ship

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/littoral-combat-vessel-worst-us-navy-warship-ever-39232

• Share on Facebook F
• Share on Twitter L
• Share on LinkedIn I
• Subscribe to RSS R
• Print

December 19, 2018 Topic: Security Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags: LCSNavyMilitaryTechnologyWorldLittoral Combat Vessel
Littoral Combat Vessel: The Worst U.S. Navy Warship Ever?

You make the call.

by Task and Purpose Jared Keller







Nobody wants the Littoral Combat Ship, and yet here it is.
The USS St. Louis was launched and christened on Saturday as the latest Freedom-class installment of its Littoral Combat Ship family, the much-derided “Little Crappy Ship” that’s been plagued with so many problems that not a single one is in operational use by the U.S. Navy after 16 years in development.
Envisioned as a “relatively inexpensive surface combatant” with an advanced modular design, the Navy technically had 11 operational LCS hulls at the end of fiscal year 2017, according to the latest Congressional Research Service analysis of the line, with plans to expand the fleet to 32 vessels. But in April, the service announced that it wouldn’t deploy any of them this year despite previous plans to deploy several to join the 7th and 5th Fleets in Singapore and Bahrain, respectively.

The reasons why were clear. The Pentagon Operational Test & Evaluation office’s review of the LCS fleet published back in January 2018 revealed alarming problems with both Freedom and Independence variants of the line, including: concerning issues with combat system elements like radar, limited anti-ship missile self-defense capabilities, and a distinct lack of redundancies for vital systems necessary to reduce the chance that “a single hit will result in loss of propulsion, combat capability, and the ability to control damage and restore system operation.”
“Neither LCS variant is survivable in high-intensity combat,” according to the report. “Although the ships incorporate capabilities to reduce their susceptibility to attack, testing of analogous capabilities in other ship classes demonstrated that such capabilities have limited effectiveness in high-intensity combat.”

But Congress, like Congress, loves to throw money at stuff it doesn’t need. Not only is the Nav eyeing the development of the Guided Missile Frigate Replacement Program or FFG(X) to fulfill basically all the strategic roles that the LCS would have as a small surface combatant (having opted back in 2014 to reduce the number of LCS vessels ordered from Lockheed Martin out of concern over the line’s performance), but lawmakers decided back in September to foist three more LCS hulls on the Navy while reducing funding for the modules necessary to increase the effectiveness of the current hulls.
“Congress, unhappy with the development of the modules falling behind schedule, will cut funding and cause development to fall further behind schedule, according to a source familiar with the details of the impact of the cuts who spoke on background,” as Defense News reported at the time. “All this while Congress continues to pump money into building ships without any of the mission packages having achieved what’s known as initial operating capability, meaning the equipment is ready to deploy in some capacity.”

On the upside, there was a bit of good news for the LCS this week: the USS Freedom just came back into service after two years of repairs designed to fix a critical engine failure. So there’s that, I guess.
This article originally appeared at Task & Purpose. Follow Task & Purpose on Twitter.

More Articles from Task & Purpose:
- 7 Veteran-Friendly Manufacturers That Are Hiring

- The 6 Types Of Contractors You Encounter Overseas
- Here’s How Marines Fared On The New Physical Fitness Test

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-trying-make-littoral-combat-ship-killer-good-luck-37962


December 5, 2018 Topic: Security Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags: LCSNavyMilitaryTechnologyWorldU.S. Navy
The Navy Is Trying to Make the Littoral Combat Ship A Killer (Good Luck)

The LCS began development in the late 1990s, when the Chinese and Russian navies were weaker than they are today. Around 2014, U.S. Navy leaders realized the sailing branch had a problem.

by David Axe Follow @daxe on Twitter L







The U.S. Navy has begun realistic testing of short-range surface-to-surface missiles aboard one of its Littoral Combat Ships.
The tests are a prerequisite to arming some of the Navy's LCSs with missiles that are capable of destroying small boats, and signal a major improvement in the warship's ability to defend itself from attack.
But neither the new Surface-to-Surface Missile Module, nor the planned addition of an over-the-horizon anti-ship missile, remedies the LCS's biggest problem. The type is woefully under-armed for high-intensity warfare.

Which is why the Navy is rushing to develop a replacement vessel with more and better weaponry.
USS Detroit, a mono-hull LCS built by Lockheed Martin and the seventh in the class, began missile testing off the U.S. East Coast on Nov. 17, 2018, the Navy announced. The tests would end in early 2019, the service stated.

The LCS class includes two sub-classes -- Lockheed's mono-hull variant and a triple-hull trimaran built by Austal. Bot subtypes displace around 3,000 tons of water.
Workers installed on Detroit a launcher packing 24 Hellfire missiles. The Hellfire module complements the Detroit's 30-millimeter and 57-millimeter guns, enhancing the ship's ability "to counter small-boat swarming threats," according to the Navy.

Poorer U.S. adversaries such as Iran have acquired large numbers of speedboats and equipped them with guns and rockets, intending to swarm American warships during wartime and overwhelm them through sheer numbers.
Swarming is a tactic of the desperate. Richer adversaries such as China and Russia plan to combat the U.S. fleet by traditional means, with long-range anti-ship missiles. Against these, the LCS has few defenses.

All things being equal, an LCS has little chance of striking an enemy warship before the enemy vessel launches its own anti-ship missiles. At present, the Hellfire with its five-mile range and 20-pound warhead, is the LCS's most potent surface-to-surface weapon. By contrast, a YJ-18 missile, which is standard aboard Chinese destroyers, carries an approximately 500-pound warhead around 300 miles.
In May 2018, the Navy awarded Raytheon a contract to begin integrating the Norwegian Naval Strike Missile on some LCSs. With its 275-pound warhead and 100-mile range, the Norwegian weapon represents a major improvement over the Hellfire, but it still can't match many Chinese and Russian missiles.

The Navy is developing new, more powerful anti-ship missiles, but in general they require vertical-launch cells, which the LCS lacks.
The absence of vertical-launch cells also means the LCS cannot carry meaningful air-defense weaponry. The type's main defense against air and missile attack is a SeaRAM missile launcher packing 11 rounds at a time. Like the Hellfire, the SeaRAM can hit targets no farther than five miles away. Not all LCSs carry the weapon.

The LCS began development in the late 1990s, when the Chinese and Russian navies were weaker than they are today. Around 2014, U.S. Navy leaders realized the sailing branch had a problem. "The emergence of sophisticated sea-denial strategies has driven a need to shift to an offensive imperative to control the seas," three admirals wrote in 2015.
The Navy had already paid for more than two dozen of the 52 LCSs it planned to buy, at a cost of around $600 million per ship, when it abruptly reversed course. In 2014 the Navy decided to end LCS purchases at 32 copies and buy 20 new missile frigates starting in 2020.

The new frigate would correct the LCS's firepower problem. "By 2030, Littoral Combat Ships and frigates will represent half of deployed surface combatants," the Navy predicted in a 2017 strategy document. "These ships must be lethal, capable and manned appropriately."
To that end, the new frigate must be capable of "holding adversary warships at risk with over-the-horizon anti-ship missile," the Navy asserted in a 2017 briefing. At a minimum, the frigate should carry eight canister-launched anti-ship missiles, according to the briefing.
But the Navy also wants the frigate to carry the Standard air-defense missile, which can hit targets as far as 90 miles away. In U.S. Navy service, the Standard missile requires a vertical-launch cell, so it's likely that whichever design the service picks for its new frigate, it'll include launch cells and, by extension, be compatible with long-range anti-ship missiles.
The Navy plans to select a builder for the new frigate some time in 2019 and build one each in 2020 and 2021 and two per year starting in 2022. The sailing branch expects each frigate to cost around $1 billion, making the type roughly twice as expensive as the LCS is, per vessel.
The extra expense means more and better weapons, which might give the new warship a fighting chance during wartime. At least, a better chance than a few Hellfire missiles afford.
David Axe edits War Is Boring . He is the author of the new graphic novels MACHETE SQUAD and THE STAN.

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

https://taskandpurpose.com/navy-littoral-combat-ship-problems

The Navy Basically Just Admitted That The Littoral Combat Ship Is A Floating Garbage Pile
Jared Keller
August 12, 2018 at 03:55 PM

Military Tech


Editor's note: This story first appeared in April 2018 and is being reposted due to reader interest.
After 16 years and billions of dollars, the Navy may have finally acknowledged that its Littoral Combat Ship program looks like a miserable failure.

The service “may not” deploy any of the dozen small surface combatants this year despite officials’ previous plans to deploy several to join the 7th and 5th Fleets in Singapore and Bahrain respectively, the U.S. Naval Institute first reported on April 11.

Given the embarrassing cost overruns and frequent mechanical failures that have plagued the program, the exquisitely-detailed report suggests that the Navy has run out of patience for the disappointment mill that is the Littoral Combat Ship, once the backbone of the future fleet that could have 355 ships.

The littoral combat ship USS Coronado (LCS 4) steams ahead during a division tactics exercise in support of Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) Thailand, June 3, 2017.U.S Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Deven Leigh Ellis)
Here’s the money graf from USNI News explaining the strange lack of upcoming deployments:
Three of the Navy’s four original LCSs are in maintenance now, and four of the eight block-buy ships that have commissioned already are undergoing their initial Post Shakedown Availabilities (PSA), Cmdr. John Perkins, spokesman for Naval Surface Force Pacific, told USNI News.
In addition to the deploying ships themselves being in maintenance, so too are the training ships that will be required to help train and certify the crews. The Navy upended its LCS training and manning plans in 2016 when then-SURFOR commander Vice Adm. Tom Rowden announced a change to a blue-gold crewing model and a ship reorganization ... not only does the deployable ship have to be in the water and ready for operations, but so does the training ship.
It’s clearly not just a matter of organizational chance that’s complicated the deployment of the LCS. Not only did the Navy reduce the number of LCSs ordered from Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics back in 2014 out of concerns over the vessel’s performance, but a review of the Navy’s LCS fleet by the Pentagon’s operational testing and evaluation arm, conducted between 2016 and 2017 and published in January 2018, revealed significant structural problems with the program’s Freedom and Independence variants.
This problems include: a concerning deficit in combat system elements (namely radar systems), limited anti-ship missile self-defense capabilities, and a lack of redundancies for vital systems necessary to reduce the chance that “a single hit will result in loss of propulsion, combat capability, and the ability to control damage and restore system operation.”
“Neither LCS variant is survivable in high-intensity combat,” according to the DoD report. “Although the ships incorporate capabilities to reduce their susceptibility to attack, testing of analogous capabilities in other ship classes demonstrated that such capabilities have limited effectiveness in high-intensity combat.”
Related: Did The Navy Just Admit The Littoral Combat Ship Is A Failure? »
While the report recommends that the Navy continue to address the Pentagon’s recommendations, the service is already eyeing other hulls to take on the coastal combat operations initially envisioned for the LCS. In July 2017, the service posted official requirements for a brand new frigate under the Guided Missile Frigate Replacement Program or FFG(X) that will “employ unmanned systems to penetrate and dwell in contested environments” — basically, be the LCS but without the headache (and the additional costs of upgrading each LCS warship to an FFG(X) configuration.)
“In many ways, this FFG(X) design goes beyond what today’s LCS can do, particularly as it relates to surface warfare,” as USNI News put it at the time. “The RFI states the frigate should be able to conduct independent operations in a contested environment or contribute to a larger strike group, depending on combatant commander needs.”
Will 2018 be the last gasp for the troubled LCS program? Knowing the DOD, probably not — but the USNI News report on the lack of LCS deployments only solidifies one truth about the vessel: LCS, as The War Zone put it, almost definitely stands for ‘Little Crappy Ship.’

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...avys-littoral-combat-ships-may-deploy-in-2018

Little Crappy Ship: None Of The Navy's Littoral Combat Ships May Deploy In 2018
A decade after USS Freedom was commissioned and multiple program restructurings, the Littoral Combat Ship fleet is nowhere near meeting its goals.
By Tyler RogowayApril 12, 2018

• The War Zone

MC1 Jay C. Pugh—U.S. Navy
SHARE

Tyler RogowayView Tyler Rogoway's Articles
twitter.com/Aviation_Intel
Even though the U.S. Navy has already commissioned a nearly a dozen Littoral Combat Ships into service, it may turn out that not a single one of those vessels gets deployed operationally in the entirety of 2018. The LCS program just can't get a win even after a broad and controversial restructuring program that saw the first four LCS hulls get turned into undeployable training ships. In addition, two squadrons of four Littoral Combat Ships were established to supposedly help readiness and to enhance the quality of the two crews assigned to each vessel.


The US Navy Still Hasn't Formally Decided to Add Hellfires to Its Littoral Combat ShipsBy Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone
One Of These Five Ships Will Become The U.S. Navy's Next Frigate By Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone
In a Blow to LCS, the US Navy Finally Admits it Needs a Real FrigateBy Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone
Two Of The Navy's Youngest Perry Class Frigates Are Set To Be Sunk By Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone
Littoral Combat Ship USS Montgomery Had Another Hull Cracking CollisionBy Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone
This stunning report comes to us from USNI News' Megan Eckstein who broke down the absurd situation in granular detail. The article is a must read in full and is linked here, but suffice it to say the fact that the program can't come near to meeting its already downgraded goals is another glaring example of just how flawed the LCS initiative was and remains to this very day. Eckstein writes in her report:

"Three of the Navy’s four original LCSs are in maintenance now, and four of the eight block-buy ships that have commissioned already are undergoing their initial Post Shakedown Availabilities (PSA), Cmdr. John Perkins, spokesman for Naval Surface Force Pacific, told USNI News.
In addition to the deploying ships themselves being in maintenance, so too are the training ships that will be required to help train and certify the crews. The Navy upended its LCS training and manning plans in 2016 when then-SURFOR commander Vice Adm. Tom Rowden announced a change to a blue-gold crewing model and a ship reorganization: hulls 1 through 4 serve in San Diego as a test division, to help test mission module components and get them fielded; the remaining ships are divided into divisions of four ships each, responsible for either surface warfare, mine countermeasures or anti-submarine warfare. Within each division, the first ship has a more experienced crew that is responsible for training and certifying the rest of the crews, and the other three ships are deployable assets. Due to this model, not only does the deployable ship have to be in the water and ready for operations, but so does the training ship."
​

Due to a number of delays, retrofitting requirements, extended maintenance periods, mishaps, testing demands and so on, the plan to send two Independence class LCSs to Singapore and one Freedom class LCS to Bahrain this year are very unlikely to come to fruition. It's worth noting that till this very day, the ships that were built for littoral combat operations have yet to deploy to the U.S. Navy's preeminent littoral combat theater, the Persian Gulf. Additionally, two LCSs have yet to be forward deployed to the same place at the same time.

USN
USS Freedom, now a training ship, getting work done in drydock.
USNI News also notes the fact that the trimaran-hull Independence class requires a drydock for virtually any maintenance availability. Considering that all the ships in the class are homeported on the west coast, and drydocks for Navy vessels are already in short supply, this will only exacerbate the vessels' availability issues. Testing needs for delayed mission modules and weapons systems also impact the LCS fleet's ability to actually do its job in the real world.
But it seems like a very hard pill to swallow that out of a cadre of 11 operational ships, more than half of them are being used as training vessels. And overall, this just underscores how downright stupid the Littoral Combat Ship concept was from its very beginning. These were the ships that were supposed to be cheap, highly flexible, extremely efficient and very deployable. They ended up being none of those things.
Eventually, the LCS program will reach some form of stability, but what exactly that will look like remains unclear. Above all else, it is getting ever more doubtful that their effectiveness and capabilities will ever come close to outweighing the opportunity cost the program has sucked down over the years.

USN
The Navy seems to have already made up its mind when it comes to the LCS program, having truncated its original buy from 55 down to 32 hulls. Now the seagoing service is focusing on what many of us have pleaded for years, a modern frigate with area air defense capabilities. That program, dubbed the FFG(X) is running full steam ahead, and its largely 'off-the-shelf' nature means that it is a relatively low risk, rapid acquisition affair, with the first ships entering service around 2025.
Even a decade after the first Littoral Combat Ship was commissioned, the program is still a mess. It hasn't even fielded a close-range missile system yet beyond the testing stage and the quickly deployable mission module concept that was supposedly so innovative and promising has been all but abandoned.
Maybe America's Navy would be better off without LCSs at all. Shipbuilding politics and the need to protect a diversified industrial shipbuilding base are some of the main arguments as to why the program still exists, along with the Navy's somewhat arbitrary goal of upping its hull numbers.

USN
USS Detroit during its commissioning ceremony.
Some have proposed canceling any further LCS purchases regardless of penalties—many ships are under construction in one form or another—or politics and transferring the fleet to the Coast Guard or selling them off to our allies. Funds would be better spent buying new frigates and smaller and far cheaper vessels for more mundane tasks. The rapid procurement of advanced, forward-deployable diesel-electric submarines may be the best use of the LCS budget of all.
Sadly, none of this will happen so the Navy will have to figure out how to make the most logical use of these ships as possible. And having two crews per a vessel, and all the training demands that go with it, may not be the best idea, especially for ships that so far have proven to be less than reliable.

USN
Whatever the future holds for the LCS, 2018 looks to be a year of hard knocks for the troubled program, and it should serve as a reminder of what the U.S. military is left to deal with after a bad idea is systemically hammered through the procurement process to the point that it is truly too big to fail.
Contact the author: [email protected]

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

The Joke of Dotard's LCS which Americans called it LITTLE CRAPPY SHIPs, is weakly armed and very fragile vulnerable. It has ABSOLUTELY NO ANTI-AIR missiles! Only tiny gun and tiny missiles 5 km range with 20 pound warhead only. These are actually just only anti-tank missiles that won't harm big warships.

The only thing good is it can run high speed. But no use at all, it still can not out run the slowest helicopters, which will be launched from ANY PLA ships, carrying missiles to kill it. And it has no defense against any helicopters or jets! Just sitting ducks in view of missiles. You can flee faster than other warships but they sent onboard helicopters to kill you from 20km away! You got nothing to hit them at all. The PLA warships can send DRONES to kill you, and they are ABSOLUTELY SAFE, and you are surely dead. Even Chinese ARMED FISHING BOATs can send a lethal drone to finish you off!

 

[KuanTi01]

No match for the incomparable PLA Type 55 Destroyer.

 

[Tony Tan]

No match for the incomparable PLA Type 55 Destroyer.

055 is way over-kill to hit LCS.

055 can kill carriers.

To Piak LCS any smallest PLA destroyers can directly (YJ-18)missile it from 250km, LCS missiles can only reach a pathetic 5km.

https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2019-03-12/doc-ihrfqzkc3241350.shtml
俄称中国打造强大驱逐舰编队 055威力是美伯克舰2倍

俄称中国打造强大驱逐舰编队 055威力是美伯克舰2倍



286

参考消息网3月12日报道 俄罗斯自由媒体网站3月9日发表了亚历山大·西特尼科夫的题为《海战：中国挡住美国舰队的去路 中国海军找到美国航母集群的弱点》的文章。文章称，有强力驱逐舰护航的5万吨级老式航母可匹敌以10万吨级现代化航母为首、但护航驱逐舰孱弱的航母战斗群。在空中支援薄弱的情况下，前者能在极限距离迅速消灭后者护航舰队。
文章认为，北京正在开展世界史上规模罕见的水面舰艇建造工作，以图在短期内打造一支最先进的海军。众所周知，中国5万吨级的001A型常规动力航母已经下水。媒体还报道了吨位更大的其他航母以及4万吨级的075型两栖攻击舰（可起降固定翼战机和直升机）的消息。
不过，美国海军拥有20艘航母，其中11艘为10万吨级的核动力航母（10艘尼米兹级、1艘福特级，本网注），另外9艘名义上是大型两栖攻击舰（8艘黄蜂级、1艘美国级，本网注），也能搭载F-35B等最新战机。
但是北京已经做好了“非对称”回应的准备，配备高效防空系统和强大导弹武器的大型战舰能在美国航母驶往南海的途中将其击毁。

资料图片：网络上流传的中国2艘055型驱逐舰同时下水照片。（图片来源于网络）

资料图片：美国海军伯克级驱逐舰。（图片来源于网络）
文章称，中国的第一位“航母克星”是8500吨级的052D型驱逐舰，其装备水平高于西方最强的阿利·伯克级驱逐舰。公开消息源显示，052D配备H/LJG-346A有源相控阵雷达（AESA）和先进的反导反潜防御系统。但最重要的是，它携带了一系列远程反舰导弹。中国得出结论，哪怕是一支相对不大的强力驱逐舰编队，也能平衡美国海军的巨大优势。模拟海战表明，只要摧毁由驱逐舰和潜艇组成的护航编队，尼米兹级和福特级核航母就会变得不堪一击。
但美国人仍把赌注押在航母上。据报道，美国造船业巨头亨廷顿英戈尔斯公司与五角大楼签订了建造2艘福特级航母（2号舰及3号舰，本网注）的合同，价值152亿美元。此外，美国希望把这种巨舰的数量增加到15艘。
2018年，中国船厂建成了多艘全世界吨位最大、威力最强的055型驱逐舰（1.3万吨级）。它搭载112个垂直导弹发射单元（VLS），齐射威力至少是美国伯克级驱逐舰的2倍。据估计，北京每年有3艘055型和3艘052D型下水，也就是6艘最新驱逐舰。

资料图片：防展上的俄军领袖级核动力驱逐舰模型。（图片来源于网络）
如此看来，如果不算俄罗斯在研的23560型领袖级核动力驱逐舰（携带上百枚“口径”和“锆石”导弹），如今西方没有能与055型匹敌的同类型驱逐舰。而且，俄罗斯海军近期内很难获得哪怕1艘23560型驱逐舰，其设计工期为7年（055型是4年）。
文章指出，这甚至不是钱的问题。不用怀疑，克里姆林宫会拨出必要资金，美国和中国也相信这一点。但俄造船业几乎无法解决的主要问题在于缺少真正职业的经理人团队，无法确保迅速获得必要技术权限，建立生产效率高的船厂。


点击进入专题：
每日军情TOP5


关键字 : 驱逐舰航母吨级

我要反


Russia claims that China is building a strong destroyer formation. 055 is twice as powerful as the US Burkes.


Russia claims that China is building a strong destroyer formation. 055 is twice as powerful as the US Burkes.



286



Reference News Network reported on March 12th Russian free media website published on March 9th Alexander Sitnikov's article entitled "Sea Battle: China Blocks the US Fleet's Way The Chinese Navy Finds the Weakness of the US Aircraft Carrier Cluster". According to the article, a 50,000-ton old-fashioned aircraft carrier escorted by a powerful destroyer can rival the carrier battle group with a 100,000-ton modern aircraft carrier but a weak escort destroyer. In the case of weak air support, the former can quickly eliminate the latter escort fleet at extreme distances.

The article believes that Beijing is carrying out the construction of a rare surface ship in the history of the world, in order to build a state-of-the-art navy in the short term. As we all know, China's 50,000-ton class 001A conventional power carrier has been launched. The media also reported on other aircraft carriers with larger tonnages and the 40,000-ton class 075 amphibious assault ship (which can take off and land fixed-wing fighters and helicopters).

However, the US Navy has 20 aircraft carriers, 11 of which are 100,000-ton nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (10 Nimitz-class, 1 Ford-class, this network note), and the other 9 are nominally large-scale amphibious assault ships ( 8 Wasp-class, 1 US-class, this network note), can also be equipped with the latest fighters such as F-35B.

But Beijing is ready for an "asymmetric" response, and large warships equipped with high-efficiency air defense systems and powerful missile weapons can destroy the US aircraft carrier on its way to the South China Sea.

Profile picture: Two Chinese 055 destroyers circulating on the Internet simultaneously launched photos. (Image from the network)

Profile picture: US Navy Burke-class destroyer. (Image from the network)

According to the article, China's first "aircraft carrier nemesis" is a 8,500-ton class 052D destroyer with a higher level of equipment than the most powerful Ali Burke class destroyer in the West. According to public sources, the 052D is equipped with the H/LJG-346A Active Phased Array Radar (AESA) and an advanced anti-missile anti-submarine defense system. But most importantly, it carries a series of long-range anti-ship missiles. China has come to the conclusion that even a relatively small fleet of powerful destroyers can balance the great advantages of the US Navy. The simulated naval battle shows that the Nimitz and Ford nuclear aircraft carriers will become vulnerable as long as they destroy the escort formation consisting of destroyers and submarines.

But the Americans still bet on the aircraft carrier. According to reports, the US shipbuilding giant Huntington Ingals and the Pentagon signed a contract to build two Ford-class aircraft carriers (No. 2 and No. 3, this network note), worth $ 15.2 billion. In addition, the United States hopes to increase the number of such giant ships to 15.

In 2018, the Chinese shipyard built a number of 055 destroyers (13,000 tons) with the largest tonnage and the strongest power in the world. It is equipped with 112 vertical missile launch units (VLS), and its volley power is at least twice that of the US Burke-class destroyers. It is estimated that there are three 055 and three 052D launches in Beijing each year, which is the 6 latest destroyers.

Profile picture: The Russian military leader-level nuclear-powered destroyer model on the anti-exhibition. (Image from the network)

It seems that if the Russian-sponsored Model 23560-class nuclear-powered destroyer (carrying hundreds of "caliber" and "zircon" missiles) is not considered, there is no destroyer of the same type that can compete with the 055 in the West. Moreover, the Russian Navy has difficulty obtaining even one Type 23560 destroyer in the near future, and its design period is 7 years (055 type is 4 years).

The article pointed out that this is not even a question of money. Needless to say, the Kremlin will allocate the necessary funds, and the United States and China believe this. But the main problem that Russia's shipbuilding industry can hardly solve is the lack of a team of managers who are truly professional. It is impossible to ensure that the necessary technical authority is quickly obtained and a shipyard with high production efficiency is established.


Click to enter the topic:
Daily military TOP5


Keywords : destroyer aircraft carrier tonnage

Russia claims that China is building a strong destroyer formation. 055 is twice as powerful as the US Burkes.


Russia claims that China is building a strong destroyer formation. 055 is twice as powerful as the US Burkes.



286



Reference News Network reported on March 12th Russian free media website published on March 9th Alexander Sitnikov's article entitled "Sea Battle: China Blocks the US Fleet's Way The Chinese Navy Finds the Weakness of the US Aircraft Carrier Cluster". According to the article, a 50,000-ton old-fashioned aircraft carrier escorted by a powerful destroyer can rival the carrier battle group with a 100,000-ton modern aircraft carrier but a weak escort destroyer. In the case of weak air support, the former can quickly eliminate the latter escort fleet at extreme distances.

The article believes that Beijing is carrying out the construction of a rare surface ship in the history of the world, in order to build a state-of-the-art navy in the short term. As we all know, China's 50,000-ton class 001A conventional power carrier has been launched. The media also reported on other aircraft carriers with larger tonnages and the 40,000-ton class 075 amphibious assault ship (which can take off and land fixed-wing fighters and helicopters).

However, the US Navy has 20 aircraft carriers, 11 of which are 100,000-ton nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (10 Nimitz-class, 1 Ford-class, this network note), and the other 9 are nominally large-scale amphibious assault ships ( 8 Wasp-class, 1 US-class, this network note), can also be equipped with the latest fighters such as F-35B.

But Beijing is ready for an "asymmetric" response, and large warships equipped with high-efficiency air defense systems and powerful missile weapons can destroy the US aircraft carrier on its way to the South China Sea.

Profile picture: Two Chinese 055 destroyers circulating on the Internet simultaneously launched photos. (Image from the network)

Profile picture: US Navy Burke-class destroyer. (Image from the network)

According to the article, China's first "aircraft carrier nemesis" is a 8,500-ton class 052D destroyer with a higher level of equipment than the most powerful Ali Burke class destroyer in the West. According to public sources, the 052D is equipped with the H/LJG-346A Active Phased Array Radar (AESA) and an advanced anti-missile anti-submarine defense system. But most importantly, it carries a series of long-range anti-ship missiles. China has come to the conclusion that even a relatively small fleet of powerful destroyers can balance the great advantages of the US Navy. The simulated naval battle shows that the Nimitz and Ford nuclear aircraft carriers will become vulnerable as long as they destroy the escort formation consisting of destroyers and submarines.

But the Americans still bet on the aircraft carrier. According to reports, the US shipbuilding giant Huntington Ingals and the Pentagon signed a contract to build two Ford-class aircraft carriers (No. 2 and No. 3, this network note), worth $ 15.2 billion. In addition, the United States hopes to increase the number of such giant ships to 15.

In 2018, the Chinese shipyard built a number of 055 destroyers (13,000 tons) with the largest tonnage and the strongest power in the world. It is equipped with 112 vertical missile launch units (VLS), and its volley power is at least twice that of the US Burke-class destroyers. It is estimated that there are three 055 and three 052D launches in Beijing each year, which is the 6 latest destroyers.

Profile picture: The Russian military leader-level nuclear-powered destroyer model on the anti-exhibition. (Image from the network)

It seems that if the Russian-sponsored Model 23560-class nuclear-powered destroyer (carrying hundreds of "caliber" and "zircon" missiles) is not considered, there is no destroyer of the same type that can compete with the 055 in the West. Moreover, the Russian Navy has difficulty obtaining even one Type 23560 destroyer in the near future, and its design period is 7 years (055 type is 4 years).

The article pointed out that this is not even a question of money. Needless to say, the Kremlin will allocate the necessary funds, and the United States and China believe this. But the main problem that Russia's shipbuilding industry can hardly solve is the lack of a team of managers who are truly professional. It is impossible to ensure that the necessary technical authority is quickly obtained and a shipyard with high production efficiency is established.


Click to enter the topic:
Daily military TOP5


Keywords : destroyer aircraft carrier tonnage