Glad I never bothered buying one of these kits.

I saw that earlier in the year.  Seems crazy and an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars.  Scrapping cause they can't do the job to save money - okay.  Building 4 ships that can't do the job in very recent years is a serious issue.  Don't they build one, try it out and give a thumbs up for the rest?  Someone should be held reponsible for this 3.x billion dollar blunder.  All that said - they are cool looking ships.  Modelcrazy did a 1/350 USS Freedom last year.  Great looking  model.

They were supposed to do too many things.

And, nobody listened when the smart people said so.  When toldto select 2 of 3 out of quick, quality, cheap, they said "Yes, all of those!"

They wanted a super-fast ship that could be sent to troublespots rapidly.  They wanted a smaller crew to man the thing (lower costs).  They wanted it to only carry "necessary" equipment (also to reduce costs).  And, they wanted them built quickly at a low unit cost.

So, the theory was to have "modular" weapons fits (and crewsspecific to those)that could be "plugged in" to need.  Because that takes time, they needed to be fast, very fast.

Fast meant light, too.  So, the would up with AL hulls.  They also needed fast, so they wound up with COSAG propulsion to drive the jet pumps needed for speed.

So, the reduction gear boxes wound up being a major issue metalurgically.  Especially with the sort of hull loading a 40kt vessel experiences.  They wound up with issues about mixing the AL alloys used (there were predictions about welding such things).  They wound up with galvanic corrosion issues (also precdicted).  That's what "sank" the first 12 produced.

Turns out "modular" is a dumb way to fit out a ship.  Especially if you expect to sail it a few weeks out of Home Port (this was predicted).  So that was ditched.  Turns out the compromises needed for CODAG (especially a marine Diesel with two different RPM ranges) were a mess (as predicted).  They had issues with either the gas turbines (chosen for weight, not reliability) as well as the Diesels (also predicted).  The reduction gears also had many engineering casualties. 

Then, the rather puny mix of the 57mm autocannon and a glorified Stinger missile fit was anemic.  The Oto-Melara 57mm unmanned mount turned out to have a lot of problems in real life (around a 50% casualty rate).

Those last two are what are "sinking" the rest of the fleet.

What they wanted was a glorified CG Cutter, only without asking any Coasties what actually works. 

Well, actually, they wanted a Des Monies class Heavy Crusier that could operate at 50-60kts, and cost less than a Frigate, and maybe carry 30-40 a/c and a battalion of Marines with landing craft, too.  And nobody told them "No."

There are some wags pointing out that Kathy Giffords is going to out last the ship named after her.

I would suggest thst we sell them to the Russians. They seem to be short a couple of surface units, and considering they "can't do the mission", well...

Bill

They were thought up back when everything just 'had' to center around 'the littorals', as if we were going to get away from the big blue .  .  .    There are times when compromising works, like in 'all or nothing' armor. The concept is fairly sound (except if you're the guy standing behind the lack of protection). So, they probably should have done the forward deployed thing so that the speed issues would have been negated, or at least minimized. 

Hi HooYah!

        I always thought they should've been Coasties.The Navy deals with that deeper bluer water don't it? There is in ships a hard and fast rule.This covers the job, the material and the crews to man them-to Quote my old FRAM destroyer captain" There Ain't no such thing as a one size fits all Warship!". besides the idea wasn't well thought out at all. But, the Armaments and Hull and Power Plant builders got their money didn't they? As usual!

       You know, makes me wonder. They built D.Ds and D.E.s during the war figuring one or two missions right? How many of those cheaply? built ships far outlasted the criteria set out for them? Way more than they figured. That's why the FRAM program. Go for ASW supremacy with all those Soviet subs running around out there. Oh, and the ASROC did work! We NEVER did get the L.A.M.P.S. choppers we were promised though! Another failed program that was!

Hi,

I agree that overall the whole program seems to be quite a waste.  I suspect the full story of the program and how it came to be what it turned out to be, may never be fully clear. 

However a thought that has crossed my mind is that in the past, when various ship types have been found to be "no longer needed" by the Navy they are sometimes made available to other US Government or foreign Government customers for use (such as the old Asheville class PGMs as well as the T-AGOS monohull type vessels).  If I am recalling correctly, I believe some of the PGMs and T-AGOS monohulls ended up having second lives as either research ships, school ships, or vessels used in support of missile range instrumentation and/or floating radar platform ships.

As such, it could be interesting to see what other may come up with as ideas for retired LCS's.  My personal thoughts are that their high top-end speed but poor cruise and loitering capabilities probably make them not too usable as normal Coast Guard vessels, but maybe they could be of use as some sort of "regionally deployable" fast response vessels, to run supplies to areas of natural (and potentially unnatural) disasters, and/or help with evacuations.

I have a copy of the Trumpeter monohull LCS (which unforutnately has an incorrectly modeled hull shape) but it could be of interest to try and kitbash it into some sort of "post-USN role" concept.

Pat

Hey, Pat:

     Well, they could strip of them of anything remotely military and sell them to be Yacht conversions. Wouldn't that be a Hoot? Betchya some Drug runners would love them!  

StrayCat1911;

     Aw Shucks, They build into beautiful "What Ifs". No, really! Like the Crocketts and others they do make interesting Models. Plus they do convert to really nice Yachts and Oceanic Research Vessels. If they weren't so troublesome I'd say Give them to the Coast Guard! They could use some ships like that. Fix the bugs first and put them in white paint, with that Coast Guard racing stripe and let them loose!

Tanker-Builder

Hey, Pat:

     Well, they could strip of them of anything remotely military and sell them to be Yacht conversions. Wouldn't that be a Hoot? Betchya some Drug runners would love them!  

 

Another thought I had was maybe trying to make them into some sort of modern APD.  Maybe strip most of the aft superstructure off and fit some davits for either a couple CB 90 boats or 11m RHIBs, and then turn the lower boat bay into troop berthins, while maybe just keeping a small hangar and flight deck for some small drones. 

Pat

As a submariner, all I could do was to watch and laugh at what the surface fleet was becoming as a result of the "LCS" program. Then, I met a SWO who admitted to me that the line referred to these as "LCS: Little Crappy Ships". But, I read an article in Naval Institute Proceedings by some Admiral who stated that these "ships" were the future of the surface fleet. I thanked God I was a Senior Chief Hospital Corpsman (Submarines) whose officers and Chiefs knew our professions. 

Yes, absolutely give them to the Russians. The Ukrainians will render them scrap metal.

Pretty sure the Coastie don't want vessels with issues of corrosion and stress fractures, and unreliable power plants.

"Stripping off anything military" is pretty much removing the OTO-Melara 57 and a CIWS.

In case of any curiosity, here's LCS-21 coming into Duluth Harbor to be commissioned as the USS Minneapolis-St Paul (since the SSN is being retired)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8UShd4sdWU&list=TLPQMTcwNTIwMjIG8DztIl95lQ&index=2

The LCS program is further proof that the best is the enemy of good enough.

And some folks gripe about the F-35 program. At least that thing is doing most of what it's supposed to do. Not to mention that they are not going away anytime soon...

Hi Capm mac!

    If you will notice,  I did say,"If they weren't so much trouble" I the "Coasties" Probably are laughing right now were we can't see them! We have a retired Coast Guard petty Officer in our R.R.Club. He told me that his buds see them as a big pile of junk and wouldn't take them on a bet!

CapnMac82

What they wanted was a glorified CG Cutter, only without asking any Coasties what actually works.  

During the FFG(X) design selection process, the Huntington-Ingalls Industries design was based on the USCG LEGEND Class Maritime Security Cutter, Large (WMSL). 

Just the opinion of one guy who used to work at the Pentagon (me): something has gone terribly wrong with Navy acquisitions.

For some background, read the article by Jim Moses in the May, 2022 issue of "Proceedings".

The Navy has now blown three major surface combatant programs in a row:  PC, LCS, and DDG 1000.  And a 4th major surface combatant, Gerald Ford, 5 years after commissioning, is still not fully operational, with the operational ability of follow-on sisterships JFK, Enterprise CV-80, and Doris Miller questionable.  Recent published reports state that parts from JFK, which is still being fitted out, are being used to keep systems functional on Ford.

The cost of all these failed or failing programs is breathtaking.

What's even more astonishing is that there doesn't seem to be any accountability for these multi-billion dollar disasters.  Why flag officers and senior service DoD civilians haven't been fired over this sustained fiasco is perplexing.

One can only hope that since the new Constellation class FFG is loosely based on a proven design in active service with other navies, it will be successful.  Same concerns for the new Columbia-class SSBN under development.

But before we even know, it's time to send a message: fire the Secretary of the Navy, fire the CNO, fire the program managers, fire the chief of Navy acquisitions, heavily penalize the shipbuilders, and conduct a thorough overhaul of Navy acquisition processes. 

The members of Congress who promoted these colossal failed or failing programs need to be held accountable, too.  This needs to be a watershed moment for our Navy.

From a taxpayer perspective, the current situation is completely unacceptable, a financial catastrophy, and a national embarrassment.  One wonders if Navy acquisitions has collapsed under its own weight.

Model Monkey

Why flag officers and senior service DoD civilians haven't been fired over this sustained fiasco is perplexing.

The Puzzle Palace may be its own problem.  And the need for "political connections" to make Flag Rank appears to be an issue, as politics appears to pollute every thing it touches.

We left WWII with 14 million in uniform, and 162 Flag Officers.  With barely 2 million in uniform, we now have 650 Flag Officers.  With staff, they number close to a Division.

O-10 now have O-7 for Chiefs o Staff as mere O-6 no longer has enough gravitas (and of course, has their own Platoon-sized Staff as well). 

The Puzzle Palace, by itself, is near the size of the entire Lithuanian Military.

This may have some bearing on the problem.

CapnMac82

 

 

Model Monkey

Why flag officers and senior service DoD civilians haven't been fired over this sustained fiasco is perplexing.

 

 

The Puzzle Palace may be its own problem.  And the need for "political connections" to make Flag Rank appears to be an issue, as politics appears to pollute every thing it touches.

We left WWII with 14 million in uniform, and 162 Flag Officers.  With barely 2 million in uniform, we now have 650 Flag Officers.  With staff, they number close to a Division.

O-10 now have O-7 for Chiefs o Staff as mere O-6 no longer has enough gravitas (and of course, has their own Platoon-sized Staff as well). 

The Puzzle Palace, by itself, is near the size of the entire Lithuanian Military.

This may have some bearing on the problem.

 

Wow, that could explain why in WW2 we could build and aircraft carrier in 18 months and have it out to the fleet, where as of now, they can't do it in 14 years.