It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:03 AM
The U.S. Navy’s troubled Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel intended to be small and speedy for use in shallow waters close to shore, lacks the firepower it needs, a top U.S. navy commander said in a classified memo.

Copeman’s memo, prepared late last year at the request of Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, indicates the Navy may be starting to re-examine the $37 billion program. The ship has been beset by troubles, including cracks and corrosion, its price has doubled since 2005 to $440 million per vessel and a decision to build two versions will add to longterm operating costs.

Not ‘Survivable’

The ship “is not expected to be survivable in that it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment,” Michael Gilmore, the weapons tester, said in a January report. Until now, Navy officials have maintained that the ship has sufficient defenses to perform its missions while working in tandem with the rest of a battle group. “These ships are designed for speed,” Rear Admiral Tom Eccles, deputy commander for naval systems engineering at the Naval Sea Systems Command, said at a Surface Navy Association conference in January. “They’re designed to be in the fight and then get out of the fight when it’s required.”


This is quite wasteful, considering that they knew alot of the shortcomings BUT still building them, splitting them into two contractors (to spread the booties), isn't this is what President Eisenhower warned before about the Military Industrial Complex ? To get their hands on the money in whatever ways ?

There are 2 designs for these ships which will add up the maintenance cost running them, it's like having two cars of the same make but different side drives.

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:56 AM
Making any war ship out of aluminum, i dont care how many hull layers its got, does not sound like a good idea.

and then...

They say and i quote "is not expected to be survivable in that it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment" - shouldnt you armor things you expect to get shot at? for 440 mill a pop i think thats an investment worth protecting.

I wouldnt feel safe in a weaponized soda can thats for sure!

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 06:31 AM
The Falkland Islands dispute should have put the use of Aluminum in warships to bed once and for all. England lost the Sheffield after a missile hit caused the aluminum to burn with very high temperatures.

History is supposed to teach us, but then, we have to pay attention.


posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 07:05 AM
shallow water ? close to shore ? isn't it better to send a missile in at that point from a distance ?

and if your're going into shallow water shouldn't it be amphibious ?

weird ship all around

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 07:37 AM
More likely this is a hastily put together project to rob the taxpayers blind.
Expect them to be much more expensive when operational.

Follow the money and they all end up in some tax havens.

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:47 AM
Star and flag op.

I would not serve on one of those things, it is a floating death trap, and now that they have announced to the world, " hey we have this 1/2 billion dollar soft target in a combat zone, so dont use anything above small arms on it , ok? Thanks guys."

What are they thinking? We already have fast and small ships for near coastal and shallow sea operations, why make one of the worst ever, and announce its weaknesses to everyone?

posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 04:03 AM
Wow so they paid half a billion for corroding aluminum ships with inadequate fire power.

Billions wasted.

edit on 1-4-2013 by SimpleKnowledge because: edit

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by mypan

I myself, never saw the tactical need for the LCS, let alone the strategic need for them, especially at the price per boat they are talking about. If you are operating in shallow water, you better be prepared to lose a lot of your ships in that area. I'd rather have a bunch a PT boats and Landing crafts ect....

Seems to be one of those programs that Congress and the Shipbuilders keep alive, rather then the Navy.

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 10:24 PM
This just reminds me of the problem associated with the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:17 AM
Aluminum has major problems.

I served on a navy mine sweep and every place that you had anything steel bolted to aluminum you had to make special provisions because of Bimetallic (galvanic) corrosion.

Sometimes we found that fitting made from aluminum that had been made from dirty recycled aluminum with tiny bits of iron in it.
These tiny bits of iron would cause the aluminum around the iron bits to turn to white powder and look like swiss cheese.

Those damn iron termites were a pain in the A**
aluminum+iron+salt water= problems

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:28 AM
Somalia pirates could overtake lesser combat-capable assets - PT boats included. Why should we go into any conflict without a healthy advantage? The LCS is designed to go into measured situations like the Somalian pirate threat with a major advantage. As far as vulnerability, we issue rifles to soldiers even though they can be taken out by enemy artillery. There is no difference. The LCS is designed for specific situations, just like a soldier with a rifle, with speed and shallow draft capabilities that allow it to get in/out of areas that are inaccessible to a more battle-hardened asset. j1
edit on 5-4-2013 by jkspooky because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:48 PM
reply to post by jkspooky

Somali pirates are not a national security threat that needs specialized ships to counter. Especially at the cost per ship we are talking about.


log in