Comments on: The Navy’s FCS

By: Erik

Erik — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:05:00 +0000

To deactivate these ships that no other country in the world can match in the mere terms of firepower and armor is totally ludicrous. I am impressed with the DDX program but it’s gun system can only give a mere fraction and strength of firepower that these battleships can give. To me a a tax payer and Naval enthusiast to have two battleships and two DDX ships to form a surface action fleet capable of countering any air, sea and land threats at the same time providing the MUCH needed fire support for our Marines would be greatly appreciated. Countries like Russia and China or even our allies do not have the mere firepower and deterrent presence that these ships can give. BRING BACK THE BATTLESHIPS and use there mere presence and strengths to our advantage.

By: JSocal

JSocal — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:02:13 +0000

As usual, our Navy’s leadership has its proverbial head up its ass. They have squandered 350 million on EGRM, placed demands on DD(X) so that its price tag has run out of site, and has nothing to show. Modernization of the battleships is still an obvious answer, but they’re more concerned that about creating command-at-sea billets, and are afraid that congress will reduce the size of the fleet if the BB’s fill the NGFS Role.
For those that feel the battleship is obsolete, then why do we still armor our carriers (yes we do)? We don’t armor other ships because it drives up costs, not because its ineffective. Moreover, the armor on our battleships will still defeat all but the largest cruise missiles.
There is also plenty of old data on extended range 11″ shells for the 16″ gun, and I bet the Marines wouldn’t mind having these ships around. We can still bring them out of retirement, but so long as the Navy is more concerned about maintaining an institution rather than fighting a war, nothing will be done.

By: Graham Strouse

Graham Strouse — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:10:16 +0000

That must have been me a page or two ago. Never post when you’re drunk, even when you’re right.
Look, we’re not going to be fighting China or Russia. China’s leadership, whatever you want to say about it is sane. So is Russia’s. Mostly. And they can’t afford to maintain a standing tugboat fleet. They do good engineering. They can’t afford maintenance. Korea, Iran, maybe. Thing is, littoral combat requires stand-off capability. Which means you have to loiter. Which means you need armor and weapons that you can not only deploy effectively but in a cost effective manner. The electronics are the cheap part. They can even by hardened. I wouldn’t even bother with the Tomahawks. I’d add more SAM & ASW capability in the fashion of the Kuznetsov class.
Now, as for all the Navy engineering pukes and Lockheed-Martin greedheads who never spent a moment considering what their dollars actually buy and what it’s good for, I’m seriously thinking of finding three or four of my largest USM friends to hold y’all down while so I can shove your Playstation up your rectum ’cause that’s what your thinking with and from.
Oh, and incidentally, $1.5 billion per for two updated BBs is pretty light considering that CVN costs $6 billion to build & $2 billion to maintain each year & as for manpower, well, 1,200 to 1,500 looks pretty good compared to 6,000 for a Floating Tomb class carrier. I mean Nimitz class carrier. Clausewitzian slip.
Ever listen to a business school lecture, children. They usually start with something like, “What business are we in?“
If your business is getting your ships sunk and your people killed then you composite hull stealth twits are the future Bill Gate’s of your field.
Radar & even IR stealth, kids, is approaching obsolescence. There are so many other wavelengths to see in & through. And no armor and close proximity to shore-based fire makes you a one-hit kill.
The closer you get to shore the more punishment you have to take because you gotta hang out in range of enemy air and ASM. And mines. And coastal subs. And if you want to deliver punishment you have to be able to load enough to loiter and keep it cheap enough to keep your magazines loaded so you can keep firing without going bankrupt.
Here endeth the lesson.

By: JT

JT — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 07:36:15 +0000

the main thing is that this technology will be available to us in future years as star wars is doing for us right now.

By: greg powrs

greg powrs — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:08:46 +0000

As former tincaner and defense observer I say that Quantity has a quaity all its own. Nes DDX tofight Boghammers. Come on. One Euro style ffg with a Bofors 57 mm EO mount and no one is getting w3ithin 3 miles of the ffg. WE need lots of smaller vessels, not 112 multibillion dollar DD’s, CG’s and CGNX’s for a fight with either irregular forces or a Sino-Indian-Burmese-Iranian alliance which I find ikely in 15 years.

By: greg powers

greg powers — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:42:28 +0000

“Quantity has a quality all its own. I am an x-tincan sailor and was appalled to see alll the Spruance class retired before even tirty years had elapsed. Mine, dd-973 the John Young, was sunk off Hawaii ion an Adcap-48 shot by one of our own ssn’s. the photo_s on the net were heartbreaking to me. I believe the DDX is a mistake. WE should build lots of smaller ffg’s and LCS’s. Look at the latest Euro designs. Small, stealthy and lots of fangs. his is what we need when we go up against the Indian-Sino alliance I see on the horizon.

By: greg powers

greg powers — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:41:21 +0000

By: Mister Strouse

Mister Strouse — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:47:43 +0000

Fire long. Fire short. Drop 200.
Military people are good at doing push-ups.
They’re stupid at wars.
This is why we keep losing them.
*****
Except or Spec-Forces, Marines & Infantry & some of our genius fliers & submarine men.
I’ll say what a lot of people are to polite to say.
You assholes couldn’t defend the toilet.
BECAUSE YOU’D GET HIT BY AN EXTENDED RANGE BBG SABOT WHILE YOU WERE SITTING ON IT!

By: Walter

Walter — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 04:29:04 +0000

A $3 billion destroyer is just plain stupid.…. THe BB’s & CA 134 can do the job and take a hit. The lack of Naval fire support is going to haunt us soon.

By: BM2

BM2 — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:24:14 +0000

I can’t agree on the Battlewagons– too much $ for a “prestige” ship — what puzzles me is why is a ship like the Puget Sound AD-38 sitting in the yard in Philly when her services are so sorely needed. Tending and maintaining the fleet in a forward position is vital to power projection! I served on the AD-38 for almost 5 years and I do not understand how a foreign shipyard could possibly compare with a Tender! The poor rotation and excessive sea time coupled with the new high year tenure will effectively reduce our beloved Navy to a bunch of short timers and career officers — which to a career enlisted man gives me the shivers.