Not the last word, apparently...but a lot of folks were expecting something like this.
Pentagon cuts LCS buy to 32 ships | Navy Times | navytimes.com
Pentagon cuts LCS buy to 32 ships | Navy Times | navytimes.com
LCS Program Cut
- Thread starter Gilligan
- Start date
Yea! 
It's a shame that we built any of the damn things.
It's a shame that we built any of the damn things.
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
I'm not happy to learn of the cut, because of the impact it could have on people's jobs, but I personally have never seen the benefit of going with a new hull design to satisfy the LCS mission requirements. The misgivings I've had were recently exacerbated when I read that the shallow-draft hull yields big advantages for showing the flag in shallow Asian ports, and this capability was described as having the same importance as speed, maneuverability, etc.
Sorry, I don't see the advantage in showing the flag up close and personal to a nation which hates us whether we show up or not.
In WWII and shortly thereafter, the Navy had a large number of ships which were small, fast, maneuverable, and capable of all the missions for which so much work has gone into designing the LCS. The ships I'm referring to were destroyers and destroyer escorts and guided-missile destroyers. The basic hull was shallow in draft, and the fuel-oil steam plants delivered pretty good speed performance. They were relatively inexpensive and reliable.
With an update to the power plants, etc., the same basic vessel would do a good job for a fraction of the LCS cost.
So, no, I can't buy in to the LCS. Neither its concept nor its execution have been impressive.
Sorry, I don't see the advantage in showing the flag up close and personal to a nation which hates us whether we show up or not.
In WWII and shortly thereafter, the Navy had a large number of ships which were small, fast, maneuverable, and capable of all the missions for which so much work has gone into designing the LCS. The ships I'm referring to were destroyers and destroyer escorts and guided-missile destroyers. The basic hull was shallow in draft, and the fuel-oil steam plants delivered pretty good speed performance. They were relatively inexpensive and reliable.
With an update to the power plants, etc., the same basic vessel would do a good job for a fraction of the LCS cost.
So, no, I can't buy in to the LCS. Neither its concept nor its execution have been impressive.
Last edited: