Talk-Polywell.org

ladajo wrote: We talk on LCS a lot at work. We see them as Frigates in all but name.

I work on LCSs too much. My opinion is that they are Frigate wannabes and will always have problems fulfilling the "escort" role.

Our Admirals, bless their hearts, will try...

You did point out the differences between the 1 class and the 2 class wrt the escort role and I do agree with your assessment,; the 1s look to be better for it; but I personally don't like either class. Just my opinion.

KitemanSA wrote:

ladajo wrote: We talk on LCS a lot at work. We see them as Frigates in all but name.

I work on LCSs too much. My opinion is that they are Frigate wannabes and will always have problems fulfilling the "escort" role.

Our Admirals, bless their hearts, will try...

You did point out the differences between the 1 class and the 2 class wrt the escort role and I do agree with your assessment,; the 1s look to be better for it; but I personally don't like either class. Just my opinion.

I fully agree with you. "Wannabe's". I think the navy has become a slow motion flaming trainwreck searching for a mountain to run into. We just keep pouring more fuel on, and hoping things will get better.
Yes, we will try, but we will also come up short, and it is going to hurt real bad eventually. Don't even get me started about LPD17.

LPD17? Aaarrrgghh!

I don't know what you guys have against the LPD 17. Granted Northrup Grumman's workmanship on the first two ships was beyond pathetic, but the basic design is very good. See the comments of the LPD 19's captain:

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/scoopdec ... ike-a-top/

This thread is drifting off of the news forum topic.

rschaffer8 wrote:I don't know what you guys have against the LPD 17. Granted Northrup Grumman's workmanship on the first two ships was beyond pathetic, but the basic design is very good. See the comments of the LPD 19's captain:

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/scoopdec ... ike-a-top/

Of course he left out that they have 3 of 4 Main Engine's operable. And what is that crap about jealous DDG's? LPD17 has not a chance of beating a DDG. Fuel efficient: yes, Fast: No.
Hmm, I wonder if his stern gate fell off yet? How's that VMS working out? etc, etc, etc...
I do not know why LPD17 class has not resulted in a second Congressional Inquiry. LPD17 itself is racking up some serious yard days fixing issues. LPD19 will have its own soon enough. Takes some run time for the lube oil system to start coming apart.

Aero is right - this discussion is way off course, but what the heck, it's finally a topic that I am qualified to address. The point I was trying to make is that there is an important distinction here. The LPD 17 from a naval architectural stand point is a well designed ship. Unfortunately, it was poorly executed by the shipbuilder. Yes the CO engaged in some hype; the LPD's are 22 knot ships, the DDG's are 30+ knots. Nevertheless, for its displacement and length, the LPD 17 is a very good hull form. The DDG 51 class due to it's artificially constrained length is not that great from a powering perspective.

ladajo wrote: We talk on LCS a lot at work. We see them as Frigates in all but name.

According to OPNAVINST 9070.1 (available via Google) Frigates are required to have a survivability level II. Seems to let them play with the big dogs (level III).
According to GlobalSecurity.org:

The LCS will meet the requirements for Level I in accordance with OPNAVINST 9070. 1.

Hence, not comparable to a Frigate. By this measure, it is effectively a "Patrol Combatant" which, size wise, makes it a Corvette (which the US hasn't had in a long time) rather than a Patrol Craft (much smaller).

ok... so we were supposed to find out if the WB6 was really as successful as Bussard said it was by way of a peer review on the WB7, at the end of phase 1(successfully scompleted?). That didn`t happen. We should be given a guaranteed disclosure at end of phase 2, otherwise this whole operation would start to reek.

I expect our Admirals will do the usual and fight the war with what ever junk they have on hand. See US Pacific Operations Dec 8, 1941.

A real shame handicapping them like that. So what else is new?

And you imagine that there is some service on this earth that makes totally rational decisions?

And what ever tactics the ships were designed to oppose will rarely be used.

zbarlici wrote:ok... so we were supposed to find out if the WB6 was really as successful as Bussard said it was by way of a peer review on the WB7, at the end of phase 1(successfully scompleted?). That didn`t happen. We should be given a guaranteed disclosure at end of phase 2, otherwise this whole operation would start to reek.

Actually, Rick has said that WB7 raised some issues that needed to be resolved (and he & the peer review panel agree this is the case) before going to larger scale.

So that looks to my like neither clearly yes nor clearly no as the WB7 result outcome. It could possibly have been more positive, tho you could argue that WB7 is incapable of resolving all the small scale resolvable questions.

Now we get the impression of WB8 very positive. But impression is just PR - we must wait & see.

Best wishes, Tom

KitemanSA wrote:

ladajo wrote: We talk on LCS a lot at work. We see them as Frigates in all but name.

According to OPNAVINST 9070.1 (available via Google) Frigates are required to have a survivability level II. Seems to let them play with the big dogs (level III).
According to GlobalSecurity.org:

The LCS will meet the requirements for Level I in accordance with OPNAVINST 9070. 1.

Hence, not comparable to a Frigate. By this measure, it is effectively a "Patrol Combatant" which, size wise, makes it a Corvette (which the US hasn't had in a long time) rather than a Patrol Craft (much smaller).

I am on board with you, however, find me a combatant that has taken a modern weapon hit, and did not lose all power. Regardless of the paper, having seen both LCS and Frigates, I think they have comparable real world damage absorption. Maybe LCS 1 is a little less compartmentalized, but with water mist, that can help make up for it. When Roberts took the mine hit, it was an act of god that they did not break in two, when Stark took the two Exocets, one did not explode. The missile fuel fire starting a Class D fueled by the superstructure, (and no water mist) was the major source of damage/death. I would bet that LCS 1 could take about the same thumping, and may come off better from the fire perspective. LCS2, not so sure, especially for mines. Cole lost all power on her hit as well. Every modern ship has. The Brits learned the lesson well enough that they now build everything with at least one generator external to the hull/superstructure.
At the end of the day, we are screwing ourselves, we need to replace warships, and we are coming up short.

Are we just waiting for ladajo to get a response to his appeal? Or did he decide not to send it? Just interested in the neutron numbers from WB-7 like everyone else. I understand Rick's/the FOIA rejection position on everything but specifically the neutron counts. We at least know they "validated" WB-6, whatever that means. Which is the point, we have no idea what "validated" means.

ladajo wrote: I am on board with you, however, find me a combatant that has taken a modern weapon hit, and did not lose all power. ...

The two you did not name, USS Tripoli and USS Princeton.