Comments on: New Navy Builds Up

By: Ernie

Ernie — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:10:42 +0000

Upgrade the ASUW and the Air Defense capability. The LCS is too weak. Its SSM is a light weight wonder weapon and has it been tested against a FAST moving object moving 25+knots?Kinda important, if you think about it. The missile system for AD is ok, but why not improve it with expanded capacity via VLS? The modular system is a BAD decision. It will hours to a few days to change out the package. It would be far safer and smarter to have a 24 cell VLS with a variety of missiles. Also add torpedo tubes, just two tubes. This is better than a light weight toy that can only tackle a 12foot dingy

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:26:44 +0000

How about geting the iowa’s out once again and upgrading them. These ships strike fear and terror in our adversaries as there is no known way to conter them. They can take tremedous punishmet and dish out what they take three fold. simply the most devastating surface vessls ever built, just ask the elite Iraqi republican gaurds, oops, most are dead.

By: Rob Currier

Rob Currier — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:40:13 +0000

The Navy is trying to figure out how to stay modern with a budget that will shrink. Cuts in personnel is one area (unfortunately) they’re trying to save money. The LCS is a smart idea. DDX in my opinion can wait. Upgrade the Burkes, finish decomming FFGs as LCS ships come out. The LCS ships and DDG upgrades would require smaller crews (in theory) which would play into what the Navy is trying to do.

By: Ron Reeves HTC (ret.)

Ron Reeves HTC (ret.) — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:35:28 +0000

CNO is to submit a 313 ship fleet proposal to OSD soon, and it shows that projected the FFG 7 class ships will all be gone by the time the LCS gets into series production. The LCS should be proven at sea first before CNO jumps the gun and has this done. Even this is a ‘here we go again’ approach to decommission a whole class of ships just to save money, then spend it on new technologies seems the way to go today, and a little bit wasteful. I think the DDX program should be deferred, and go to the smaller ships if we are going to fight an inshore war or wars in the future…there to me has been too much ballyhoo about them. Also do not Decommission any more 688’s we need them now more than ever.….

By: Seth

Seth — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:37:30 +0000

The reason the U.S. Navy needs to update, and build new destroyers is to stay one step ahead of the Chinese Navy. The Chinese Navy already has Aegis capabilities that they copied from the U.S. In order for the United States to stay safe, and capable of destroying these ships it needs to have something that can one-up the Aegis. This is why the Navy needs to spend money on new destroyers, instead of updating the old. There is so much technology that we can put into our ships, we would need an entirely new ship, instead of just overhauling the Arleigh Burke class.

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:58:54 +0000

The Navy should eye China & build ships accordingly & include new Blue Water ships for this threat alone.
Must do or risk another attack???
Improve our Sub Forces alone here.
Hybrid Littoral ships: 1/2 atomic, 1/2 gas turbine drive????
More can be done.

By: Joe Katzman

Joe Katzman — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:16:35 +0000

DID has done an in-depth feature on the LCS:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/10/the-usas-new-littoral-combat-ships-updated/index.php
They are about the size of a British Type 23 frigate, and come with a number of advantages:
* Modularity. They’re designed to switch from mission to mission very quickly by swapping out add-ons: ASW, land attack, mine-hunting, intelligence and scouting, Special forces insertion and support, etc.
* UAV/UUV carrier. The LCS is just part of it. The drones and underwater robots it will load and carry will be the rest.
* Cost: Much cheaper than an DDG-51 Arleigh Burke — and those destroyers will stay in the fleet until the 2040s. May operate as a small strike force with 1–3 LCS ships backed by 1–2 DDG-51s.
* Stealth. They’ll have a number of stealth features, which will help them get in closer to shore and even up rivers if necessary.
BTW, what you see above in a Norwegian Skjold (Shield) class hovercraft catamaran (yeah, you heard that right), not a US LCS.

By: M.Perkins

M.Perkins — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:31:13 +0000

I currently serve on a Burke. DDG 86. It’s capabilities are incredible. So why can’t we continue to upgrade these? I read that our B-52 bomber force will continue in service until at least 2045. That’s a 100 years! Can’t take the billions to be spent on new ships and continue to upgrade what we have?

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:51:15 +0000

62 Burke-Class destroyers could probley take on half the worlds Navy combined. With our subs, aircraft carriers, and destroyers, our Navy will not have a problem. The only thing I am worried about is some nut decomissioning alot of our destroyers and such for ships set on small wars, thus leaving our navy vulnerable.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:21:39 +0000

I didn’t understad the LCS till I read the comments above. My first question was how big it was. So it could be used in ASW, good. I think that ASW will be very importent very soon due to our chineise friedns and there new toys.
I would caution against overconfidence though, it always get us into trouble.