It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Littoral Combat Ship...Unbelievable New Technology.

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

The Navy’s chief of operations, in San Diego last week, defended the service’s embattled new vessel class, the littoral combat ship. “LCS is going to continue as a program,” said Adm. Gary Roughead, the Navy’s top officer. “I think we’ve got a good ship on our hands.”




This thing looks really cool...


The Senate Armed Services Committee had harsh words for the program recently. “I’m sure you share my frustration that following an $8 billion taxpayer investment in the (littoral) program, the Navy continues to lack a single ship that is operationally effective or reliable,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said at a committee hearing last month.


With the Nation's financial problems, for 8 billion it better perform.


The littoral will have removable “modules” that allow it to do anti-submarine, mine countermeasure or anti-ship missions, based on which is installed at the time.


That's an interesting feature.


The new ship class is supposed to replace three long-serving vessels: the frigate, coastal patrol ship and the mine countermeasures ship. Roughead talked about where the littoral fits into overall U.S. ship strategy. At what he described as a still-low price, the Navy can buy enough ships to cover more ocean.


Here's a different photo...




Littoral Wiki
Story



edit on 10-8-2011 by whyamIhere because: link




posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
That thing looks like a monster. So beautiful. still my starving alzheirmers having grandpa would use that money better, rather then tearing some other human being apart.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere

... following an $8 billion taxpayer investment in the (littoral) program, the Navy continues to lack a single ship that is operationally effective or reliable,”
. At what he described as a still-low price, the Navy can buy enough ships to cover more ocean.




8 Billion is a LOW price for a boat. And the USA can afford a whole heap of them!
See? The USA still has bucketloads of money. Dunno what everyone is complaining about.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Paint that baby black and you got yourself the Bat-Boat. Seriously, the design reminds me of the Christopher Nolan Batmobile and Batbike.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
amazing; how doesit float?
I s p owes depens watt flo ats your boat ha
)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Heaps of money that we the people never see




$8 billion taxpayer investment


oh wait we did see the money, but it was taken from us to build a new killing machine



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Patroll more oceans you say ....well I thought the us patrolled all of them now ...Oh I see this is for patroll on the sea of tranqulity on some other celisteral body ...peace



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
This high tech crap is getting out to lunch.....
I think if youve got a ship that fills three rolls it wont be very good at one of them.....
The profile doesnt look very stealthy either......



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Just been reading about this ship on various message forums.
The consensus appears to be that the thing is a heap of c**p.
To save you having to read a whole bunch of different links, here is just one representative page, on what people are saying...


the full, traditional rigor of Navy-mandated ship shock trials is not achievable,



The LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment as evidenced by the limited shock hardened design and results of full scale testing of representative hull structures



So, we have a warship design that is not expected to fight and survive in the very environment in which it was produced to do so. Poorly-armed, poorly-protected, with an over-abundance of speed that will eat through a fuel supply in half a day.



No way do I want my grandkids caught in that deathtrap. Or anybody else’s. Not in a fight, not in a storm, not in a fire. No way.



Not designed to fight – and not crewed sufficiently to contain and repair damage when it happens and still be able to operate. This disgrace of a ship not only can’t fight hurt – it can’t float hurt. It was designed this way. Why? Because someone had a speed fetish



These LCS “Bait” boats are no “steet-fighters”. They are an accident/incident waiting to happen. May God bless all who sail upon them…because they’re going to be a casualty or a hostage in some third world prison.



Survivability was sacrificed at the altar of speed.



LCS



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
That ship looks way to much like a pyramid.

So much for pyramid power lol, that is if reports of it being a POS are true.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Those look like two very different ships, not just a change in the angle, how many do they actually have?



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The German military version is cheaper:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Thanks for all the comments.

If it really replaces three ships it seems like it would be worth it.

However, In this economy....It's a tough sell.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSpeech
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Those look like two very different ships, not just a change in the angle, how many do they actually have?


I never could find an exact number.

I see three variations just in these photos.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


They have 2 different models from 2 competing shipbuilders, 1 model from each manufacturer.
LCS-1 (USS Freedom)
and
LCS-2 (USS Independence)

There will be two LCS classifications named after these two ships. Or at least, that was the plan...

more info






edit on 8.10.11 by toreishi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by toreishi
 



Thanks for the information.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Nobama
 


I sorta think thats the idea ?

Stealth ?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
The first ship is the HSV-2 Swift. It isn't a Littoral Combat Ship. It is a high speed transport with no armament. It is also not a commissioned US Navy vessel. It is privately owned and leased to the Navy for logistics purposes and for minesweeping due to it's aluminum hull and shallow draft.

The second ship is the USS Indepencence. It is a tri-hull aluminum vessel with very little armament. After less than a year in active service, she had to be returned to drydock for extensive repairs. Due to the lack of zinc anodes or any other type of cathodic protection, the aluminum hull was quickly eaten away.

They have since installed a cathodic protection system but it is still a weak aluminum hull that will require constant maintenance and repair. The ship was not worth the money poured into it. Neither was the Zumwalt Class Destroyer.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I always like the design of the LCS-2, it looks great, but come on, give it some more weapons, and one RIM-116 is not enough to protect this ship, its current position cannot even cover a strait on shot to the bow of the ship.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Yep, first ship is HSV-2, Built in Hobart, Tasmania. Pretty much the same as the HMAS Jervis Bay, which used to be used as a ferry between George Town and Melbourne. Awesome transport ships if the sea is flat(they can almost crack 50 knots), but cant handle big swells worth a damn.




top topics



 
6

log in

join