And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Why isn't it the case that when naval designers/ship builders sell a boondoggle of a ship to the Navy that Marines aren't directed to line them up against brick walls for further proceedings? Wouldn't it serve as an object lesson to others to do better?
Why isn't it the case that when naval designers/ship builders sell a boondoggle of a ship to the Navy that Marines aren't directed to line them up against brick walls for further proceedings? Wouldn't it serve as an object lesson to others to do better?
Because they were built to what the US Navy stated they wanted.
At least the LCS-2 varient is not as bad mechanically as the LSC-1 varient. But even with that.....they are useless as a box of rocks. They can't even load them up with missiles because they are so weight critical.
I was embarassed to say I actually did the planning for the repairs to those things. It is embarassing the things we wrote up for repairs. The Navy does not have the ability to repair itself anymore. They will tell you they are "Operators" not "Maintainers". It is depressing walking the waterfront at Naval Base Norfolks and look at all the rusting ships there. You have to ask yourself "Do the commanding officers have any pride in their ships?" cause whe you look at them it reminds me of a Thai frieghter.....rust everywhere.
So you ar the one that dwesigned those maintenance nightmares! Can't tell you how many pubs and tech manuals I had to read to figure out how to repair the damn thing....always broken. Probably cause the sailors don't do any PM to the damn things in 95% of the cause of failure. The other 5% is the fact they do not know how to correctly use the equipment.
I served as a Marine combat engineer (peacetime) but had a lot of Naval Science (structure, history, operations, weapons, engineering, etc.) in college. 6 weeks aboard a FRAM II Gearing class - fireroom, engine room, CIC, signal bridge, look-out, etc. Abbreviated damage-control school, submarine orientation, including 2.5 days aboard an SSBN. Some Naval aviation. After my USMC service, I did a lot of design engineering on military stuff. A lot of shipboard equipment for LHA/LHD, Vulcan tailgun mount for B-52H, AWADS radar for C-130, rocket and guided-missile launchers, LOX equipment for USAF para-rescue (and Japanese civil defense, after Fukushima), modular 30mm cannon mount to be "strapped-on" to civilian cargo & tanker ships (to defend against terrorist boats & slow A/C), mods to armored vehicles, specialized vehicles for loading palletized cargo onto aircraft. Manufacturing-support equipment for F-35. There are a lot of factors in military contracting that aren't widely known to the general public. For one thing, contracting companies often don't have useful, informative contact with users. Usually, they are strictly limited by the customer's system specification, and communication outside of formal, established channels is usually not available. And there are problems. WRT to the LCS bridge crane, we could never get the shipyard to identify foundations (location, layout, and strength) for mounting the overhead rails (because they were chronically behind schedule), so we took the alternate approach and our drawings showed where we wanted bolt holes - meaning, of course, that the naval architect would have to adapt the ship's structure to accommodate our crane. I went to the yard in Alabama for the final design review, which resulted in acceptance and no issues or actions for my company. Some weeks after I returned home I learned that the company we were subcontractors to had declared bankruptcy on the day of the design review. I agree with your other comments about LCS. Flawed concept - do-all ship (somewhat analogous to USN/USAF F-111); install specialized modules for different missions; crew too small.
P.S. Forgot to mention . . . the summer after my senior year in high school, I got a job in a shipyard on the Mississippi River. They built towboats and barges. I started as a laborer, collecting trash. They offered me a chance to learn a little welding. Worked as an assistant to a layout man, measuring and marking steel plate for locations to weld on other steel parts. Became an assistant welder, then progressed to welding inner-bottoms & frames, fit-up & assembly welding, etc. Building tanker barges. I like shipyards. They give you the sense that you could build anything, of any size.
Far worse than useless. They killed outright the FFG-7 class they were to replace, sucked up every dime of ship construction funding for a decade and are utterly useless for any role they were allegedly built to perform. They cannot do mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare, anti-ship warfare or any other kind of warfare. Literally, far worse than merely useless, they destroyed the fleet we needed to be building to counter chinese expansion.
I took a tour of one of these ships. I was told the crew was 55. Each crew member was cross trained with another. IMO, too few crew, aluminum hull is too vulnerable to damage, could carry a seal team as long but that's it.
They'll make great reefs one of these days. Probably LONG before they mothball the B52 though.
ReplyDeleteLONG before.
"Expensive and barely useful". That's littorally true. However, they'd be good for Billy Mitchel to practice on.
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't it the case that when naval designers/ship builders sell a boondoggle of a ship to the Navy that Marines aren't directed to line them up against brick walls for further proceedings? Wouldn't it serve as an object lesson to others to do better?
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't it the case that when naval designers/ship builders sell a boondoggle of a ship to the Navy that Marines aren't directed to line them up against brick walls for further proceedings? Wouldn't it serve as an object lesson to others to do better?
ReplyDeleteBecause they were built to what the US Navy stated they wanted.
DeleteAt least the LCS-2 varient is not as bad mechanically as the LSC-1 varient. But even with that.....they are useless as a box of rocks. They can't even load them up with missiles because they are so weight critical.
I was embarassed to say I actually did the planning for the repairs to those things. It is embarassing the things we wrote up for repairs. The Navy does not have the ability to repair itself anymore. They will tell you they are "Operators" not "Maintainers". It is depressing walking the waterfront at Naval Base Norfolks and look at all the rusting ships there. You have to ask yourself "Do the commanding officers have any pride in their ships?" cause whe you look at them it reminds me of a Thai frieghter.....rust everywhere.
You can add the Zumwalt and Ford to that Task Force. Through in a few F-35's for decoration.
ReplyDeleteLittle Crappy Ships....good riddance
ReplyDeleteI was the project engineer and lead designer for a bridge crane in the ammo magazine of that class of ships. All pneumatic.
ReplyDeleteSo you ar the one that dwesigned those maintenance nightmares! Can't tell you how many pubs and tech manuals I had to read to figure out how to repair the damn thing....always broken. Probably cause the sailors don't do any PM to the damn things in 95% of the cause of failure. The other 5% is the fact they do not know how to correctly use the equipment.
DeleteI served as a Marine combat engineer (peacetime) but had a lot of Naval Science (structure, history, operations, weapons, engineering, etc.) in college. 6 weeks aboard a FRAM II Gearing class - fireroom, engine room, CIC, signal bridge, look-out, etc. Abbreviated damage-control school, submarine orientation, including 2.5 days aboard an SSBN. Some Naval aviation.
DeleteAfter my USMC service, I did a lot of design engineering on military stuff. A lot of shipboard equipment for LHA/LHD, Vulcan tailgun mount for B-52H, AWADS radar for C-130, rocket and guided-missile launchers, LOX equipment for USAF para-rescue (and Japanese civil defense, after Fukushima), modular 30mm cannon mount to be "strapped-on" to civilian cargo & tanker ships (to defend against terrorist boats & slow A/C), mods to armored vehicles, specialized vehicles for loading palletized cargo onto aircraft. Manufacturing-support equipment for F-35.
There are a lot of factors in military contracting that aren't widely known to the general public. For one thing, contracting companies often don't have useful, informative contact with users. Usually, they are strictly limited by the customer's system specification, and communication outside of formal, established channels is usually not available.
And there are problems. WRT to the LCS bridge crane, we could never get the shipyard to identify foundations (location, layout, and strength) for mounting the overhead rails (because they were chronically behind schedule), so we took the alternate approach and our drawings showed where we wanted bolt holes - meaning, of course, that the naval architect would have to adapt the ship's structure to accommodate our crane. I went to the yard in Alabama for the final design review, which resulted in acceptance and no issues or actions for my company. Some weeks after I returned home I learned that the company we were subcontractors to had declared bankruptcy on the day of the design review.
I agree with your other comments about LCS. Flawed concept - do-all ship (somewhat analogous to USN/USAF F-111); install specialized modules for different missions; crew too small.
P.S. Forgot to mention . . . the summer after my senior year in high school, I got a job in a shipyard on the Mississippi River. They built towboats and barges. I started as a laborer, collecting trash. They offered me a chance to learn a little welding. Worked as an assistant to a layout man, measuring and marking steel plate for locations to weld on other steel parts. Became an assistant welder, then progressed to welding inner-bottoms & frames, fit-up & assembly welding, etc. Building tanker barges. I like shipyards. They give you the sense that you could build anything, of any size.
Delete" . . . And now, a word from our sponsons . . . ."
ReplyDelete"Useful"??? Only if you keelhaul the entire generation of SWO "leadership" responsible. Stem to stern, not abeam.
ReplyDeleteBoat Guy
That would be keelraking.
DeleteFar worse than useless. They killed outright the FFG-7 class they were to replace, sucked up every dime of ship construction funding for a decade and are utterly useless for any role they were allegedly built to perform. They cannot do mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare, anti-ship warfare or any other kind of warfare. Literally, far worse than merely useless, they destroyed the fleet we needed to be building to counter chinese expansion.
ReplyDeletethey squandered the budget on lunches, coffee mugs and mouse pads.
DeleteOct 2010 Chinese Jen class sub launched test missile off California coast.
I took a tour of one of these ships. I was told the crew was 55. Each crew member was cross trained with another. IMO, too few crew, aluminum hull is too vulnerable to damage, could carry a seal team as long but that's it.
ReplyDeleteCrew is too small to do effective damage control. Crew is too small to do basic maintenance, US Navy blew it on these POS's.
DeleteAs you can tell from the number of comments I have made on this thread...I have no love at all for these crappy ships.