If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Wired: "The US Navy's new class of ship is about to be deployed. Here's how to destroy them"   (wired.com) divider line 75
    More: Stupid, Fighting Ship, warships, vice admirals, corrosion, loading  
•       •       •

9031 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Jan 2013 at 4:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-15 10:37:38 PM
Sounds like the Navy just launched their own Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
Pentagon Wars anyone?
 
2013-01-15 10:56:34 PM

t3knomanser: So, which congressional district was this built in? I just want to know where all the pork is going.


Probably had parts made in at least 30 different states. That way it's tough to get a majority to vote against it as they will be bashed for killing jobs in their states come election time.
 
2013-01-15 11:02:27 PM
Ah, reminds me of the stealch destroyer they build that couldn't defend itself from short and medium range air assault, the most common method for destroying destroyers.
 
2013-01-15 11:09:47 PM
"Eez seemple. Vee vait for Amereekan sheeps to rust."

*frantic Cossack dancing*
 
2013-01-15 11:17:49 PM

AirForceVet: When I heard they were using an aluminum superstructure on the Littoral class, I was wondering didn't anyone remember the lessons from the 1970s?


The Independence (trimaran type) is 100% aluminum. SO glad I got retired before I'd have to worry about fighting fires on one of them. (Hull Tech)
 
2013-01-15 11:55:16 PM
700million for a coastal warship? Someone is getting fleeced.
 
2013-01-16 01:04:06 AM

iaazathot: Ah, reminds me of the stealch destroyer they build that couldn't defend itself from short and medium range air assault, the most common method for destroying destroyers.


An air assault from whom? The US has air superiority everywhere it goes. If it is a coalition aircraft and it is flying in US-controlled airspace, it either won't be flying for long or the US is letting it fly. Besides, most ships travel in groups that contain the full range of offense and defense.
 
2013-01-16 01:12:57 AM

AirForceVet: When I heard they were using an aluminum superstructure on the Littoral class, I was wondering didn't anyone remember the lessons from the 1970s?


The Pentagon Office of Ruminant Procurement is standing by in case a test is needed

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-16 04:44:15 AM
At least they're finally getting around to designing and building the whiskers...

We should now expect to see the Seaquest being announced some time soon!
 
2013-01-16 05:04:33 AM

Tobin_Lam: iaazathot: Ah, reminds me of the stealch destroyer they build that couldn't defend itself from short and medium range air assault, the most common method for destroying destroyers.

An air assault from whom? The US has air superiority everywhere it goes. If it is a coalition aircraft and it is flying in US-controlled airspace, it either won't be flying for long or the US is letting it fly. Besides, most ships travel in groups that contain the full range of offense and defense.


While true about the air superiority part, I think you're wrong about the group travel part. The point of this ship's mine-sweeping and littoral functionality means a big part of its job is going to be outside the group. While it may still be under the protective umbrella of an AEGIS system, this is not necessarily going to be the case in a large percentage of its uses.

I think what they should have been going for is a supermegaPT boat, but they ended up with something like a castrated corvette.
 
2013-01-16 05:34:17 AM

The Snow Dog: Tobin_Lam: iaazathot: Ah, reminds me of the stealch destroyer they build that couldn't defend itself from short and medium range air assault, the most common method for destroying destroyers.

An air assault from whom? The US has air superiority everywhere it goes. If it is a coalition aircraft and it is flying in US-controlled airspace, it either won't be flying for long or the US is letting it fly. Besides, most ships travel in groups that contain the full range of offense and defense.

While true about the air superiority part, I think you're wrong about the group travel part. The point of this ship's mine-sweeping and littoral functionality means a big part of its job is going to be outside the group. While it may still be under the protective umbrella of an AEGIS system, this is not necessarily going to be the case in a large percentage of its uses.

I think what they should have been going for is a supermegaPT boat, but they ended up with something like a castrated corvette.


That's a good point.
 
2013-01-16 07:13:28 AM

grinding_journalist: You know what we should keep doing? Building giant ships, complex aircraft, and cumbersome land vehicles that require expensive, specialized infrastructure, personnel trained on systems so specific that not only can they only do "that one thing", but their skills are useless outside of the military, and take so long to research develop, and build that by the time they deploy, any enemy with a real chance of doing harm to them and their crew already knows how to do so.

What we SHOULDN'T do is spend the same money on developing swarms, fleets, and armies of disposable remotely piloted drones that reduce our loss of life, requisites for a deployed force, and necessary support infrastructure, because then we wouldn't have billions (trillions) of dollars of military contractor welfare handed out to companies (and the select few who decide where those dollars go) while not being accountable for any of it.

/woo america


Do you know what a littoral combat ship is?
 
2013-01-16 08:15:25 AM

meanmutton: grinding_journalist: You know what we should keep doing? Building giant ships, complex aircraft, and cumbersome land vehicles that require expensive, specialized infrastructure, personnel trained on systems so specific that not only can they only do "that one thing", but their skills are useless outside of the military, and take so long to research develop, and build that by the time they deploy, any enemy with a real chance of doing harm to them and their crew already knows how to do so.

What we SHOULDN'T do is spend the same money on developing swarms, fleets, and armies of disposable remotely piloted drones that reduce our loss of life, requisites for a deployed force, and necessary support infrastructure, because then we wouldn't have billions (trillions) of dollars of military contractor welfare handed out to companies (and the select few who decide where those dollars go) while not being accountable for any of it.

/woo america

Do you know what a littoral combat ship is?


Better than a figurative combat ship?
 
2013-01-16 09:33:18 AM

The Snow Dog: Tobin_Lam: iaazathot: Ah, reminds me of the stealch destroyer they build that couldn't defend itself from short and medium range air assault, the most common method for destroying destroyers.

An air assault from whom? The US has air superiority everywhere it goes. If it is a coalition aircraft and it is flying in US-controlled airspace, it either won't be flying for long or the US is letting it fly. Besides, most ships travel in groups that contain the full range of offense and defense.

While true about the air superiority part, I think you're wrong about the group travel part. The point of this ship's mine-sweeping and littoral functionality means a big part of its job is going to be outside the group. While it may still be under the protective umbrella of an AEGIS system, this is not necessarily going to be the case in a large percentage of its uses.

I think what they should have been going for is a supermegaPT boat, but they ended up with something like a castrated corvette.


Anti-ship missiles are the biggest threats. Not having a true multi layer defence system is the biggest problem with these little ships. If the missiles fail to get the silkworm then the gun can try. If that fails then it's up to the CIWS. If that fails... well... swim. The missiles on this ship are small and short range, the gun is the same that's on the Canadian frigates, and the missiles are actually the CIWS... I wouldn't want to drive this too far from my AEGIS equipped cruiser while transiting the straits of hormuz.
 
2013-01-16 09:46:49 AM
So have the Republicans started blaming Obama and his magical time machine yet?

You know they will. Never mind when the ships were designed or when the lead ship of the class was built or that it's military spending. Tremendously expensive government property doesn't work right? They'll be blaming Obama by sundown.
 
2013-01-16 10:33:02 AM
There is nothing in this article that anyone with any interest in destroying a ship like this didn't already know.
 
2013-01-16 10:48:01 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: meanmutton: grinding_journalist: You know what we should keep doing? Building giant ships, complex aircraft, and cumbersome land vehicles that require expensive, specialized infrastructure, personnel trained on systems so specific that not only can they only do "that one thing", but their skills are useless outside of the military, and take so long to research develop, and build that by the time they deploy, any enemy with a real chance of doing harm to them and their crew already knows how to do so.

What we SHOULDN'T do is spend the same money on developing swarms, fleets, and armies of disposable remotely piloted drones that reduce our loss of life, requisites for a deployed force, and necessary support infrastructure, because then we wouldn't have billions (trillions) of dollars of military contractor welfare handed out to companies (and the select few who decide where those dollars go) while not being accountable for any of it.

/woo america

Do you know what a littoral combat ship is?

Better than a figurative combat ship?



d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net
 
2013-01-16 11:07:39 AM
Gilmore discloses that the Navy has "knowledge gaps related to the vulnerability of an aluminum ship structure to weapon-induced blast and fire damage,"

Let me help.

HMS Ardent burning:

c69011.r11.cf3.rackcdn.com

Everyone knows exactly how vulnerable aluminum ships are to blast and fire damage.

The LCS is built with aluminum for the same reason that beer cans are made of aluminum. Both are intended to be cheap and disposable. The navy just lacks the stones to say it out loud.
 
2013-01-16 11:23:41 AM
The Army built the M113 and the M2 out of aluminum. At least the M113 was cheap, even if it was a death trap for the crew and passengers if an IED or RPG hit it.
 
2013-01-16 11:55:15 AM
Admiral: You left dock without a tractor beam?
Captain: It doesn't arrive until Tuesday.

[later]

Admiral: Arm torpedoes to fire on my command.
Helmsman: Admiral! We don't have any torpedoes!
Admiral, to captain: Don't tell me - Tuesday?
 
2013-01-16 12:51:02 PM

Dinjiin: A Navy vessel that doesn't work and will require extensive and expensive design fixes to correct.  Lemme guess, Lockheed or General-Dynamics is the builder...

USS Freedom (LCS-1) is produced by the Lockheed Martin consortium, in competition with the General Dynamics-designed USS Independence

Can we nuke those two from orbit already?  Farking corporate welfare and theft at its worse.


Lets wait a little bit...my employer makes parts for GD (including M231/232 MACS extraction sleeves, made 285 of them myself just last night) and I believe we have a pending contract LM. Id like to keep the job maybe another year...so schedule the nukes for summer 2014, should be good by then.

We also did a test run of parts for Northrop/Grumman a couple months ago. Our next biggest cata gory of products is medical. We blow em up and fix em up.
 
2013-01-16 02:57:16 PM
Although it was already mentioned, this always needs to be posted in threads like these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA. If you haven't seen this movie, you really should as it describes practically any military equipment development program.

You can just tell thats what happened with this, multi-missions, various capability, all hard to integrate and make work. Also the concept of a "disposable" ship is somewhat flawed as a ship that costs half a billion to a billion dollars each isn't all that disposable. This isn't to say we don't need something with a brown water capability but honestly if you want something you can afford to lose to operate in a hostile environment it needs to be something closer to a PT type boat or the boghammers the Iranians use.
 
2013-01-17 04:50:21 PM
FTA: The Navy ultimately wants to buy 55 of the ships.

Iran seen getting a price estimate on 55 cruise missiles.
 
2013-01-17 04:58:22 PM

AirForceVet:
USS Belknap and its aluminum superstructure after colliding with aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy in 1975, catching fire.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x525]


That'll buff right out.
 
2013-01-17 05:24:25 PM

MisterRonbo: FTA: The Navy ultimately wants to buy 55 of the ships.

Iran China seen getting a price estimate on 55 cruise missiles.


FTFY.
 
Displayed 25 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report