What would you have spent the B-2 money on?

kitplane01 · Mon May 09, 2022 5:22 am

About the LCS ...

The entire class, all of the ships combined, were able to generate 6 deployments in 2021. Fewer in 2020. Fewer in 2019. The ships cannot deploy.
https://thediplomat.com/2021/07/us-navy ... -year-end/

The GAO report on the LCS ship (Feb 2022) starts with "The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) fleet has not demonstrated the operational capabilities it needs to perform its mission" Later on Page 39 " In 2016, after several years of discovering serious deficiencies during testing, DOT&E reported that it had sufficient data to declare the Freedom and Independence variants of the seaframe unsuitable for operational use as a result of continued reliability issues."
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105387.pdf

Seriously, if you think the LCS is a good ship .. go read some place like news.usni.org, and search for LCS.
https://news.usni.org/?s=lcs

Vintage · Mon May 09, 2022 5:30 am

kitplane01 wrote:
About the LCS ...

The entire class, all of the ships combined, were able to generate 6 deployments in 2021. Fewer in 2020. Fewer in 2019. The ships cannot deploy.
https://thediplomat.com/2021/07/us-navy ... -year-end/

The GAO report on the LCS ship (Feb 2022) starts with "The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) fleet has not demonstrated the operational capabilities it needs to perform its mission" Later on Page 39 " In 2016, after several years of discovering serious deficiencies during testing, DOT&E reported that it had sufficient data to declare the Freedom and Independence variants of the seaframe unsuitable for operational use as a result of continued reliability issues."
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105387.pdf

Seriously, if you think the LCS is a good ship .. go read some place like news.usni.org, and search for LCS.
https://news.usni.org/?s=lcs

You do realize that a line like: "The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) fleet has not demonstrated the operational capabilities it needs to perform its mission" is a vague generality and comes from bureaucrats, therefore is meaningless. Don't you?

kitplane01 · Mon May 09, 2022 8:01 am

Vintage wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
The US Navy is retiring LCS hulls as fast as it can. The biggest constrain is whether Congress will let the USN retire ships that are so new and cost so much when built.

I won't join in but I see you are getting a lot of push back from others on this subject.

I politely don't think that's true. I think one poster (Avatar2go) likes the LCS, and the actual USN doesn't. That's why they want to retire them early.

Really, I suggest if you want to form an opinion on the LCS go read whatever naval source you respect on the LCS. I would pick blog.usni.org as highly respected, but feel free to choose your own sources.

Or maybe you respect The Drive? See https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... of-service
My favorite line: "Indeed, it’s been reported in the past that the LCS is almost as expensive to run as the far more capable Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer."

The USN does not retire early ships they actually like.

GDB · Mon May 09, 2022 11:45 am

My own view on the B-2, 132 was way too many post Cold War, might not have reached that number even if it had carried on, 21 was too few, not many were needed in the new and while the B-2 was being designed, wholly unexpected change in the security situation.
But it has and used it’s conventional delivery capabilities, it could do so in a heavy AD environment, so maybe around 40-50 or so, still be expensive but not perhaps to the eye watering levels such a limited run meant.
Plus they don’t have to carry nukes to have a deterrent effect in some situations.

texl1649 · Mon May 09, 2022 1:20 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Vintage wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
The US Navy is retiring LCS hulls as fast as it can. The biggest constrain is whether Congress will let the USN retire ships that are so new and cost so much when built.

I won't join in but I see you are getting a lot of push back from others on this subject.

I politely don't think that's true. I think one poster (Avatar2go) likes the LCS, and the actual USN doesn't. That's why they want to retire them early.

Really, I suggest if you want to form an opinion on the LCS go read whatever naval source you respect on the LCS. I would pick blog.usni.org as highly respected, but feel free to choose your own sources.

Or maybe you respect The Drive? See https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... of-service
My favorite line: "Indeed, it’s been reported in the past that the LCS is almost as expensive to run as the far more capable Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer."

The USN does not retire early ships they actually like.

Yes. From a weapon system perspective the LCS is an abysmal failure, which is manifested in how few have been bought (despite not being designed for the Cold War), and how few have been deployed, and how little future resources the USN is pouring into it, vs. it’s replacement. It takes a lot of gas and maintenance, has a short range, an ineffective weapons/firepower suite, and in general is just way too vulnerable to light counter-fire.

There’s really not a ‘this is great’ fan group at this point among USN planners/legislators etc. It’s over, regardless of one’s source.

744SPX · Mon May 09, 2022 2:13 pm

The LCS (and quite frankly --despite the blue water spin-- the Virginia class) is a relic of the Navy's very ill-advised brown-water period in the 90's, for which we are still paying the price.

LyleLanley · Mon May 09, 2022 5:11 pm

texl1649 wrote:
There’s really not a ‘this is great’ fan group at this point among USN planners/legislators etc.

I believe their only fan group is the Austal USA shipyard and their shareholders.

It's nice that they're employed, but would be a lot nicer if they weren't turning out lemons - that can't even be squeezed into lemonade - with taxpayer dollars.

johns624 · Mon May 09, 2022 7:44 pm

Since the Constellation-class FREMM frigates are supposed to be built in the same shipyard as the Freedom-class LCS, maybe they'll be able to switch over earlier.

JayinKitsap · Mon May 09, 2022 8:09 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Vintage wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
The US Navy is retiring LCS hulls as fast as it can. The biggest constrain is whether Congress will let the USN retire ships that are so new and cost so much when built.

I won't join in but I see you are getting a lot of push back from others on this subject.

I politely don't think that's true. I think one poster (Avatar2go) likes the LCS, and the actual USN doesn't. That's why they want to retire them early.

Really, I suggest if you want to form an opinion on the LCS go read whatever naval source you respect on the LCS. I would pick blog.usni.org as highly respected, but feel free to choose your own sources.

Or maybe you respect The Drive? See https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... of-service
My favorite line: "Indeed, it’s been reported in the past that the LCS is almost as expensive to run as the far more capable Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer."

The USN does not retire early ships they actually like.

My SO worked as a PA in Civil Service, retired 5 years ago. USNI.org was highly trusted by her, they are basically the PR house for the navy when they officially don't want to say anything themselves. USNI tows the Navy line pretty closely, is run by retired officers basically. I trust USNI a lot. The Drive / The War Zone is good, does a lot of stories beyond where the mainstream media is. I would say is similar to Flight Global in there area, much better than Simple Flying for sure.

The US Navy's Report to Congress and their summaries are the official statements on specific programs. Yes there is often "we'll get this fixed" or "corrections are forthcoming" kind of PR, basically cheerleading that this expensive program will get over the finish line and be good. Look to similar reports on the KC-46, basically "we'll be happy once these deficiencies are resolved." kind of press.

Currently, the LCS and DDG-1000 programs are the only ones where the Navy would prefer for them all to "go away". Replacing the combining gear on the Independence is a warranty issue, with Lockmart basically paying for the overhaul. The Navy doesn't want to lose the shipyard availability on that verses other project nor does it want Marinette Marine to divert resources to it verses finishing the new builds of the class and the Constitution class frigate. I would assume Lockmart will be providing credits instead of doing the work. The DDG-1000 program of record is capped at the 3 that have been built and these three will be comissioned. The strange thing is the LCS is still getting funded out to the stated 16 total of the Freedom class, 10 completed (1 already retired), 2 being fitted out, and 4 in production. The Navy now wants to retire the 9 completed that have the bad gearbox. The Independance class has 14 completed (1 already retired), 1 being fitted out and 4 in production.

Both the Independence and Freedom are moored in Sinclair Inlet by Bremerton, WA. The Independence is the first ship seen as one drives into Bremerton, it looks really tired compared to the Kitty Hawk behind it.

Avatar2go · Mon May 09, 2022 11:18 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
About the LCS ...

The entire class, all of the ships combined, were able to generate 6 deployments in 2021. Fewer in 2020. Fewer in 2019. The ships cannot deploy.
https://thediplomat.com/2021/07/us-navy ... -year-end/

The GAO report on the LCS ship (Feb 2022) starts with "The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) fleet has not demonstrated the operational capabilities it needs to perform its mission" Later on Page 39 " In 2016, after several years of discovering serious deficiencies during testing, DOT&E reported that it had sufficient data to declare the Freedom and Independence variants of the seaframe unsuitable for operational use as a result of continued reliability issues."
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105387.pdf

Seriously, if you think the LCS is a good ship .. go read some place like news.usni.org, and search for LCS.
https://news.usni.org/?s=lcs

Please note you are referring to forward deployments here. USN practice is to forward deploy about a third of the ships, so 6 forward deployments would be normal for the number of LCS in active service.

The GAO report is based on data from 2016. Considerable amount of progress in the ensuing 6 years. Quite obviously, the LCS are in normal deployment, both forward and home fleets.

This is the difference between parroting what you read, and knowledge of the evidence at hand.

Avatar2go · Mon May 09, 2022 11:29 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Vintage wrote:
I won't join in but I see you are getting a lot of push back from others on this subject.

I politely don't think that's true. I think one poster (Avatar2go) likes the LCS, and the actual USN doesn't. That's why they want to retire them early.

Really, I suggest if you want to form an opinion on the LCS go read whatever naval source you respect on the LCS. I would pick blog.usni.org as highly respected, but feel free to choose your own sources.

Or maybe you respect The Drive? See https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... of-service
My favorite line: "Indeed, it’s been reported in the past that the LCS is almost as expensive to run as the far more capable Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer."

The USN does not retire early ships they actually like.

My SO worked as a PA in Civil Service, retired 5 years ago. USNI.org was highly trusted by her, they are basically the PR house for the navy when they officially don't want to say anything themselves. USNI tows the Navy line pretty closely, is run by retired officers basically. I trust USNI a lot. The Drive / The War Zone is good, does a lot of stories beyond where the mainstream media is. I would say is similar to Flight Global in there area, much better than Simple Flying for sure.

The US Navy's Report to Congress and their summaries are the official statements on specific programs. Yes there is often "we'll get this fixed" or "corrections are forthcoming" kind of PR, basically cheerleading that this expensive program will get over the finish line and be good. Look to similar reports on the KC-46, basically "we'll be happy once these deficiencies are resolved." kind of press.

Currently, the LCS and DDG-1000 programs are the only ones where the Navy would prefer for them all to "go away". Replacing the combining gear on the Independence is a warranty issue, with Lockmart basically paying for the overhaul. The Navy doesn't want to lose the shipyard availability on that verses other project nor does it want Marinette Marine to divert resources to it verses finishing the new builds of the class and the Constitution class frigate. I would assume Lockmart will be providing credits instead of doing the work. The DDG-1000 program of record is capped at the 3 that have been built and these three will be comissioned. The strange thing is the LCS is still getting funded out to the stated 16 total of the Freedom class, 10 completed (1 already retired), 2 being fitted out, and 4 in production. The Navy now wants to retire the 9 completed that have the bad gearbox. The Independance class has 14 completed (1 already retired), 1 being fitted out and 4 in production.

Both the Independence and Freedom are moored in Sinclair Inlet by Bremerton, WA. The Independence is the first ship seen as one drives into Bremerton, it looks really tired compared to the Kitty Hawk behind it.

The USN does not want the LCS to go away. If their requested retirements occur (which is doubtful), there would still be 23 in service, of the original 35. So about two-thirds. That is not a program they don't want.

Although you refuse to acknowledge the USN statements, the reason for the 9 requested retirements is the cancellation of the ASW package. It is not the combining gear repair, which the USN said was not that expensive.

The War Zone is an editorial site with a long history of hit-jobs on defense programs. It's how they make their money. But have been proven wrong, time and again. The F-35 is no damn good, remember? They sent their kids to college on that one (and are still at it). Or the KC-46 cannot refuel aircraft, except whoops, by God it can. The pattern is very consistent.

If you prefer to believe what you read, over the USN statements, facts, and evidence, be my guest. But it's important that the facts be posted alongside.

LyleLanley · Tue May 10, 2022 12:37 am

Avatar2go wrote:
The War Zone is an editorial site with a long history of hit-jobs on defense programs. It's how they make their money. But have been proven wrong, time and again. The F-35 is no damn good, remember? They sent their kids to college on that one (and are still at it). Or the KC-46 cannot refuel aircraft, except whoops, by God it can. The pattern is very consistent.

If you prefer to believe what you read, over the USN statements, facts, and evidence, be my guest. But it's important that the facts be posted alongside.

The War Zone is like the National Enquirer: look at the pretty pictures and ignore what's written.

FlapOperator · Tue May 10, 2022 3:06 pm

744SPX wrote:
The LCS (and quite frankly --despite the blue water spin-- the Virginia class) is a relic of the Navy's very ill-advised brown-water period in the 90's, for which we are still paying the price.

That was A) the mission set and B) the budget.

We need to also separate the two programs...the LCS was a marginal idea borne of a bad war game whose original point has been lost for a long time. Further, when the LCS was conceptualized, the constraints of the GWOT were in full swing. Fast forward to 2022, and one can make a compelling argument that the 10 division active US army has lost its one mission.

FlapOperator · Tue May 10, 2022 3:08 pm

Interestingly, USNI ran this piece https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... etfighters over a decade ago where those authors were calling for multimission Euro sourced frigates.

FlapOperator · Tue May 10, 2022 3:10 pm

Like or hate the B-2, to say it doesn't do the mission that it was procured for is incorrect. The deterrence mission is done, everyday. Unlike the SSBNs and ICBMs, we do get a secondary benefit from its conventional capability.

GDB · Tue May 10, 2022 3:23 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
Like or hate the B-2, to say it doesn't do the mission that it was procured for is incorrect. The deterrence mission is done, everyday. Unlike the SSBNs and ICBMs, we do get a secondary benefit from its conventional capability.

Yes, if Putin still rants on and intel shows any sign of his strategic forces upping their alert levels, worth forward basing a few, RAF Fairford has been used before. I would say make it a media event but the aviation enthusiast community and modern communications will soon do it for them.

FlapOperator · Tue May 10, 2022 3:26 pm

GDB wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:
Like or hate the B-2, to say it doesn't do the mission that it was procured for is incorrect. The deterrence mission is done, everyday. Unlike the SSBNs and ICBMs, we do get a secondary benefit from its conventional capability.

Yes, if Putin still rants on and intel shows any sign of his strategic forces upping their alert levels, worth forward basing a few, RAF Fairford has been used before. I would say make it a media event but the aviation enthusiast community and modern communications will soon do it for them.

Well, who wants to deploy to Thule when Gloucestershire is available?

LyleLanley · Tue May 10, 2022 8:36 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
Well, who wants to deploy to Thule when Gloucestershire is available?

I can see some AFPC/BUPERS detailer/used car salesman, trying to blue falcon some poor schmuck into taking a 179 or 365 to Thule: "Hey buddy, England's full of warm beer, but at Thule there's a beautiful Danish girl behind every tree! Your buddies will be 'green' with envy at your IG snaps!... Ok, just click 'digitally sign'".

Vintage · Tue May 10, 2022 9:01 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
Like or hate the B-2, to say it doesn't do the mission that it was procured for is incorrect. The deterrence mission is done, everyday. Unlike the SSBNs and ICBMs, we do get a secondary benefit from its conventional capability.

In the era of the S-300 and S-400 type systems, B2's trying to get overhead high value targets of first world adversaries would be in grave danger on the way in and the way out of the target area.

These days low observable aircraft are no longer new technology, China and Russia have both developed tactics to minimize the threat posed by low observables. Although it seems we can downgrade our estimation of Russia's competence, this is not likely to be the case with China. IMO, the money spent on keeping these vestiges of the last war alive would be better spent on more stand off missiles for the F35, newer and better drones and/or loyal wingman vehicles.

GDB · Tue May 10, 2022 10:07 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
GDB wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:
Like or hate the B-2, to say it doesn't do the mission that it was procured for is incorrect. The deterrence mission is done, everyday. Unlike the SSBNs and ICBMs, we do get a secondary benefit from its conventional capability.

Yes, if Putin still rants on and intel shows any sign of his strategic forces upping their alert levels, worth forward basing a few, RAF Fairford has been used before. I would say make it a media event but the aviation enthusiast community and modern communications will soon do it for them.

Well, who wants to deploy to Thule when Gloucestershire is available?

Because they have been there before so ready for the aircraft’s unique requirements.

par13del · Wed May 11, 2022 2:30 am

Vintage wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:
Like or hate the B-2, to say it doesn't do the mission that it was procured for is incorrect. The deterrence mission is done, everyday. Unlike the SSBNs and ICBMs, we do get a secondary benefit from its conventional capability.

In the era of the S-300 and S-400 type systems, B2's trying to get overhead high value targets of first world adversaries would be in grave danger on the way in and the way out of the target area.

These days low observable aircraft are no longer new technology, China and Russia have both developed tactics to minimize the threat posed by low observables. Although it seems we can downgrade our estimation of Russia's competence, this is not likely to be the case with China. IMO, the money spent on keeping these vestiges of the last war alive would be better spent on more stand off missiles for the F35, newer and better drones and/or loyal wingman vehicles.

The B2 can carry larger and faster missiles than the F-35, no one is flying B2's overhead any target to drop dumb bombs, what one B2 can do requires multiple F-35's.

HowardDGA · Wed May 11, 2022 5:47 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
[
Currently, the LCS and DDG-1000 programs are the only ones where the Navy would prefer for them all to "go away". Replacing the combining gear on the Independence is a warranty issue, with Lockmart basically paying for the overhaul.

I thought Lockmart was the Freedom class, and the Indy was GD/Austal.

kitplane01 · Wed May 11, 2022 6:11 am

Avatar2go wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
About the LCS ...

The entire class, all of the ships combined, were able to generate 6 deployments in 2021. Fewer in 2020. Fewer in 2019. The ships cannot deploy.
https://thediplomat.com/2021/07/us-navy ... -year-end/

The GAO report on the LCS ship (Feb 2022) starts with "The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) fleet has not demonstrated the operational capabilities it needs to perform its mission" Later on Page 39 " In 2016, after several years of discovering serious deficiencies during testing, DOT&E reported that it had sufficient data to declare the Freedom and Independence variants of the seaframe unsuitable for operational use as a result of continued reliability issues."
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105387.pdf

Seriously, if you think the LCS is a good ship .. go read some place like news.usni.org, and search for LCS.
https://news.usni.org/?s=lcs

Please note you are referring to forward deployments here. USN practice is to forward deploy about a third of the ships, so 6 forward deployments would be normal for the number of LCS in active service.

The GAO report is based on data from 2016. Considerable amount of progress in the ensuing 6 years. Quite obviously, the LCS are in normal deployment, both forward and home fleets.

This is the difference between parroting what you read, and knowledge of the evidence at hand.

Dude, your both impolite and wrong. I'm done talked about this with you.

But just to pick the easiest thing to obviously correct .. you wrote "The GAO report is based on data from 2016". The report says on page three "This report is a public version of a sensitive report that we issued in August 2021". It's a follow up to the 2016 report, describing what's happened since 2016. Read it, and learn the four million places it talks about data from post 2016. For example, "we reviewed reports from the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), from 2003 through 2020 on LCS operational performance and related testing. We also reviewed postdeployment reports from 2016 through 2020; casualty reports from 2019
and 2020; lessons learned reports from 2013, 2017, and 2018;"

Last thought: They are currently scheduled to retire the St Louis in 2023, a ship commissioned in 2020. When was the last time such a young ship was decommissioned? But actually don't answer, because you're rude and I'm done.

bajs11 · Wed May 11, 2022 6:24 am

heh if they knew back in late 70s and early 80s that the USSR would collapse in 10 years then surely would also know that about 20 yrs a certain Saudi billionaire would fly jets into the two towers and Pentagon, right?
If you are criticizing the B-2 as a total waste of money then what about the Strategic Defense Initiative which has wasted waaaaaay more money than the total program cost of the B-2.

While we are at it I think the US of A should spend all those billions on preventing universities and colleges like the MIT from accepting students from the PRC
Have you ever wondered how many of those working on J-20 and FC-31 and DF-21 went to schools in the US?
OR spend those money on preventing the PRC joining the WTO

RJMAZ wrote:
Vintage wrote:
I see their aircraft carrier investment as a dead end that is coming fairly soon, with a bang.
This is another case of the (O7s and above) trying to refight the last war after times have changed.

I completely agree. Stopping aircraft carrier production would be a massive decision and no one has the guts to make it. Unfortunately it would take multiple aircraft carriers to be sunk before the US Navy would ever admit to the aircraft carrier having no future.

The USAF NGAD will be the aircraft that makes the aircraft carrier mission redundant. It will be able to fly all the way from Japan to Taiwan in only 30 minutes. It will still have enough internal fuel remaining to return without inflight refueling.

If its a dead end then why is the PRC building their own carriers with the next one, their third, being roughly the size of the Nimitz and Ford?
Pretty sure those air bases in Japan will be the first to go when the CCP decides to invade the RoC.
and you do know that the USN has its own NGAD and I am pretty sure a 30+knots moving island is far more survivable than any of those fixed islands around Japan or Guam.

Avatar2go · Wed May 11, 2022 8:04 am

kitplane01 wrote:

Dude, your both impolite and wrong. I'm done talked about this with you.

But just to pick the easiest thing to obviously correct .. you wrote "The GAO report is based on data from 2016". The report says on page three "This report is a public version of a sensitive report that we issued in August 2021". It's a follow up to the 2016 report, describing what's happened since 2016. Read it, and learn the four million places it talks about data from post 2016. For example, "we reviewed reports from the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), from 2003 through 2020 on LCS operational performance and related testing. We also reviewed postdeployment reports from 2016 through 2020; casualty reports from 2019
and 2020; lessons learned reports from 2013, 2017, and 2018;"

Last thought: They are currently scheduled to retire the St Louis in 2023, a ship commissioned in 2020. When was the last time such a young ship was decommissioned? But actually don't answer, because you're rude and I'm done.

Neither impolite nor wrong. Just factual. The USN disputed the cost claims in the GAO report as being outdated, and have given publicly the changes they have implemented to reduce costs. I've given those changes here already, you ignored them.

The St Louis is on the requested list of retirements, but as pointed out but also ignored by you, not yet approved by Congress. And as again ignored by you, the request was due to the cancellation of the ASW mission package, not the ship itself.

You cannot insist on your opinion in contravention of the facts, then blame the opposing party for the contravention. As always, you are free to dispute the facts I've given.

FlapOperator · Wed May 11, 2022 1:53 pm

Vintage wrote:
In the era of the S-300 and S-400 type systems, B2's trying to get overhead high value targets of first world adversaries would be in grave danger on the way in and the way out of the target area.

These days low observable aircraft are no longer new technology, China and Russia have both developed tactics to minimize the threat posed by low observables. Although it seems we can downgrade our estimation of Russia's competence, this is not likely to be the case with China. IMO, the money spent on keeping these vestiges of the last war alive would be better spent on more stand off missiles for the F35, newer and better drones and/or loyal wingman vehicles.

The thing is that I don't know if the last two months of watching the Russians flounder in Ukraine really puts them in the "first world adversaries" bin.

JayinKitsap · Thu May 12, 2022 2:00 am

HowardDGA wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
[
Currently, the LCS and DDG-1000 programs are the only ones where the Navy would prefer for them all to "go away". Replacing the combining gear on the Independence is a warranty issue, with Lockmart basically paying for the overhaul.

I thought Lockmart was the Freedom class, and the Indy was GD/Austal.

You are right, I somehow flipped them.

RJMAZ · Thu May 12, 2022 6:24 am

FlapOperator wrote:
The thing is that I don't know if the last two months of watching the Russians flounder in Ukraine really puts them in the "first world adversaries" bin.

The US overstates the capability of potential adversaries to keep the huge military budgets and research and development flowing. My fairly expert opinion is that the US could fight the combined force of the rest of the planet combined and still win. 90+% of the weapons systems aimed at the US would get intercepted. 90+% of the US weapon systems would hit their target.

Most of this stems from access to the latest semiconductors. People don't realise that 100% of the tech is western owned and controlled. China has to import any chips that are considered remotely advanced. You can't chop up a microchip and reverse engineer it. European tech is also great because they have access. So despite decades of low european military budgets they could probably match Chinese tech despite the Chinese pumping in so much resources. Russia is far below China and their radar and targeting systems would probably be similar to what the US was using in the first gulf war. So the A-10's getting shot up because they were flying low over the desert using the MK1 eyeball is similar to what we are seeing now with the Russian helicopter and SU-25 aircraft. While the A-10's could make it back to base they mostly couldn't fly again. The Russia aircraft in Ukraine crash after taking the same damage.

JayinKitsap · Thu May 12, 2022 8:39 am

RJMAZ wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:
The thing is that I don't know if the last two months of watching the Russians flounder in Ukraine really puts them in the "first world adversaries" bin.
The US overstates the capability of potential adversaries to keep the huge military budgets and research and development flowing. My fairly expert opinion is that the US could fight the combined force of the rest of the planet combined and still win. 90+% of the weapons systems aimed at the US would get intercepted. 90+% of the US weapon systems would hit their target.

Most of this stems from access to the latest semiconductors. People don't realise that 100% of the tech is western owned and controlled. China has to import any chips that are considered remotely advanced. You can't chop up a microchip and reverse engineer it. European tech is also great because they have access. So despite decades of low european military budgets they could probably match Chinese tech despite the Chinese pumping in so much resources. Russia is far below China and their radar and targeting systems would probably be similar to what the US was using in the first gulf war. So the A-10's getting shot up because they were flying low over the desert using the MK1 eyeball is similar to what we are seeing now with the Russian helicopter and SU-25 aircraft. While the A-10's could make it back to base they mostly couldn't fly again. The Russia aircraft in Ukraine crash after taking the same damage.

This overstatement is quite visible in Ukraine right now, both sides have Soviet equipment, Ukraine upped their game since 2014 but the Russians don't look like a top 3 military, a lot due to the Russians lack of training and a shaky supply chain.

This Ukraine war has quite tightened the denial of tech going to any we don't consider on our team, as it should. It's like NATO 155 mm ammo doesn't fit in the Soviet guns, we don't want our tech coming back at us.

texl1649 · Thu May 12, 2022 10:00 am

Well, that and the Soviets deliberately chose artillery dimensions that are 1 or 2 mm different because they felt the same way.

flyingturtle · Thu May 12, 2022 11:09 am

texl1649 wrote:
Well, that and the Soviets deliberately chose artillery dimensions that are 1 or 2 mm different because they felt the same way.

Are artillery shells actually interchangeable between the guns, if the diameter of the round is the same? Would it just require some experimental research (e.g. different air resistance of the shells, different acceleration and deceleration...)?

RJMAZ · Thu May 12, 2022 11:31 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
This overstatement is quite visible in Ukraine right now, both sides have Soviet equipment, Ukraine upped their game since 2014 but the Russians don't look like a top 3 military, a lot due to the Russians lack of training and a shaky supply chain.

It has very little to do with training or supply chain. The Russian tanks and aircraft are simply getting destroyed by vastly superior western equipment. My grandma could probably pull the trigger on the launchers with 5 minutes of training.

The footage online of the stinger kills the Russia aircraft had no idea a missile was even launched.

It would be great watching two Russian built fighter aircraft dogfighting. They would probably fly around in circles until one aircraft either hit the ground or ran out of fuel.

FlapOperator · Thu May 12, 2022 12:38 pm

We are seeing all sorts of dynamics in Ukraine, not the least of which is the obvious assessment that the improvements made in the wake of the Georgian War didn't ripple through the force...

Its going to take years to figure out what is happening in Ukraine, and frankly I wonder if Russians are doing better than the information flow would suggest at the tactical level. However, its obvious that in urban and built up areas and at the operational level overall, the Russians generally well thought out doctrine isn't really fit.

Vintage · Thu May 12, 2022 12:48 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Well, that and the Soviets deliberately chose artillery dimensions that are 1 or 2 mm different because they felt the same way.

The 152mm that the Russians inherited from the SU dates back to before WW1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_ho ... 937_(ML-20)

FlapOperator · Thu May 12, 2022 1:50 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
So the A-10's getting shot up because they were flying low over the desert using the MK1 eyeball is similar to what we are seeing now with the Russian helicopter and SU-25 aircraft. While the A-10's could make it back to base they mostly couldn't fly again. The Russia aircraft in Ukraine crash after taking the same damage.

That's not semi-conductors, that's decades of defence engineering design derived from historical lessons learned leveraged by whatever intelligence is available.

For example, as part of the A-10 and UH-60 and M-1 tank designs, emphasis was put on pilot/crew survival. Lots of engineering went into a thousand factors that would be advantagous to this, because lots of combat experience showed that crews that survive can fly and fight again. Crews are hard to replace in near real time, where history is replete with examples of frontline maintainers and engineers getting deadlined equipment moving and fighting again. Further, crews with faith in the equipment are generally more willing to take the tactical risks that often are the difference at the tactical level.

So, the seats and fuel systems of the UH-60, the blowout panels of the Abrams or the titanium bathtub of the A-10 are all immediate engineering systems design questions.

The Soviets had different engineering considerations, and their equipment shows it.

FlapOperator · Thu May 12, 2022 4:35 pm

Regarding the LCS, there is this gem...I get that its Navy Slimes but...

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... ll-cracks/

While NAVSEA contends that the crack issue does not hinder the ability of such ships “to get underway and execute missions,” the documents obtained by Navy Times show the problem is limiting how fast ships with afflicted hulls can go and the sea states in which they can operate.

Omaha, a $440 million LCS commissioned in 2018 — which has since been turned into a training vessel — is one of the ships suffering such cracks.

According to a temporary standing order, or TSO, issued by Omaha’s command on July 8, 2021, and obtained by Navy Times, the ship was operating under “speed and sea state restrictions” in order to “limit crack propagation.”

The order prohibited Omaha from traveling faster than 15 knots — 17 mph — in “sea state 4,” a level entailing a maximum wave height of 8.2 feet.

GDB · Thu May 12, 2022 6:38 pm

Looks like some grift involved with the LCS class that's not all it's cracked up to be;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beNUTnJjPNI

texl1649 · Thu May 12, 2022 7:30 pm

Half of them are ‘cracking?’ As per the two previous posts, 15 knots vs. a design speed of 70 is quite a restriction. what an epic fail of a program.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/t ... e-cracking

Vintage · Thu May 12, 2022 7:39 pm

GDB wrote:
Looks like some grift involved with the LCS class that's not all it's cracked up to be;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beNUTnJjPNI

There's a lot of childish emotionalism displayed in that video. All large engineering programs encounter problems eventually require engineering changes, this one clearly is a minor, easily solvable issue. And the LCS weren't meant to be heavy weather blue water ships anyway, so this problem turns up on the fringe of their mission.

I don't really have a strong opinion about this LCS drama, but as I read the arguments pro and con I am struck by how the detractors of the LCS never even try to make a factual case against the programs; instead they base their case on vague government reports which may or may not give reasons in the reports themselves but those reasons remain unstated in anything I've read here. The cancelled ASW issue, doesn't hold much water, that seems to me to be an oxymoron in a Littoral Combat ship. This ship obviously was intended to be used in shallow coastal waters, it was not intended to be part of a carrier group's defense. If it was, how would the carrier group get by when the LCS departed the group for its assigned mission?

What I conclude, is that the Navy has decided that it no longer wants to engage in the mission that the LCS was designed and purchased for: extending sea based power ashore.

The people who are in need of this littoral sea power are the Marines and the Marines, who obviously would be in favor of having LCS behind them, are politically constrained from speaking up in favor of the LCS.

I suspect Congress is doing the right thing by forcing the Navy to continue this program unless there is some unspoken weakness in a carrier group's defenses that the addition of a few frigates will fix.

RJMAZ · Thu May 12, 2022 10:40 pm

It is worth noting the B-2 program started 5-6 years before the F-22 program. US$23 billion has already been spend on B-2 R&D by 1989 before the YF-22 demonstrator even flew. The production B-2 flew 8 years before the production F-22. Without the advanced curved stealth R&D from the B-2 program the F-22 might have only ended up with F-117 levels of stealth. This would have had a further knock on effect for all future stealth aircraft. The B-2 developed many new stealth technologies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northro ... B-2_Spirit

Vintage wrote:
The cancelled ASW issue, doesn't hold much water, that seems to me to be an oxymoron in a Littoral Combat ship. This ship obviously was intended to be used in shallow coastal waters, it was not intended to be part of a carrier group's defense. If it was, how would the carrier group get by when the LCS departed the group for its assigned mission?

It was intended to be part of the carrier's defense so that would be performing its assigned ASW mission. When a carrier is operating off the enemy coast the defenses have to form a ring around it. The defensive ring obviously goes into the littoral on one side. Diesel electric subs would hide in the littoral waiting to sink the carrier. This is what the ASW package for the LCS was meant for.

744SPX · Fri May 13, 2022 12:00 am

texl1649 wrote:
Half of them are ‘cracking?’ As per the two previous posts, 15 knots vs. a design speed of 70 is quite a restriction. what an epic fail of a program.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/t ... e-cracking

Almost as epic as the DDG-1000 AGS ammunition fail. Just had to put all their eggs in the LRLAP basket. Beyond idiotic, but typical of DOD's pattern of choosing electronic sophistication over everything else.

JayinKitsap · Fri May 13, 2022 12:21 am

RJMAZ wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
This overstatement is quite visible in Ukraine right now, both sides have Soviet equipment, Ukraine upped their game since 2014 but the Russians don't look like a top 3 military, a lot due to the Russians lack of training and a shaky supply chain.

It has very little to do with training or supply chain. The Russian tanks and aircraft are simply getting destroyed by vastly superior western equipment. My grandma could probably pull the trigger on the launchers with 5 minutes of training.

The footage online of the stinger kills the Russia aircraft had no idea a missile was even launched.

It would be great watching two Russian built fighter aircraft dogfighting. They would probably fly around in circles until one aircraft either hit the ground or ran out of fuel.

Yes the training on the new equipment as well as the same equipment the Russians have, Ukraine is clamoring for shells for their soviet artillery, guns, and tanks. Their own anti-tank missiles are having good success also, yes the Javelin and the NLAW are ledgendary but the adadpted commercial drones with soviet era shaped charge hand grenades are doing good.

In terms of Air Superiority, for operations above the MANPAD ceiling the Russians and Ukrainians are using the same equipment, with Ukraine upgrading their MIGS like the Poles have but not vastly different in terms of tech between R & U here and with the S-300 and S400 missiles. Same equipment but the well trained Ukrainian pilots have a much lower loss rate than the Soviets. I doubt the Ukrainians are taping their civilian GPS into the cockpit, the russians are.

But as you noted "It would be great watching two Russian built fighter aircraft dogfighting. They would probably fly around in circles until one aircraft either hit the ground or ran out of fuel." They probably have been flying around until one breaks away due to lack of fuel, only explanation for Ukraine to still have fighters right now.

I may have lumped in readiness into the training. The Russians equipment is far less ready than the Ukranians with little ability to fix in the field. Broken radios, high missle loss rates, abandoned tanks, crappy tires, inactive protections, and the like. It turns out the Moskva didn't have thier fire control radar in service when the Neptune missiles struck.

https://news.usni.org/2022/05/05/warshi ... ysis-shows

A likely lesson from Ukraine will be the rise of expendable armed drones. What happens when cheap drones can pack a 10 pound warhead 200 km away. Artillery currently is 20 km, heading to 30 km so supplies are 30 to 40 km from the front. It changes the dynamics to jump that to 200 km, also all those supply trucks are vulnerable in that no mans zone behind the front. In WW1 the no man's zone was between the two armies, now the armies must operate within the zone.

Vintage · Fri May 13, 2022 12:26 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Vintage wrote:
The cancelled ASW issue, doesn't hold much water, that seems to me to be an oxymoron in a Littoral Combat ship. This ship obviously was intended to be used in shallow coastal waters, it was not intended to be part of a carrier group's defense. If it was, how would the carrier group get by when the LCS departed the group for its assigned mission?

It was intended to be part of the carrier's defense so that would be performing its assigned ASW mission. When a carrier is operating off the enemy coast the defenses have to form a ring around it. The defensive ring obviously goes into the littoral on one side. Diesel electric subs would hide in the littoral waiting to sink the carrier. This is what the ASW package for the LCS was meant for.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but the fact stands out to me that the frigates the Navy intends to buy to replace the LCSs won't likely be going into the Littoral waters that were to be the domain of the LCS's anyway. So that argument cancels itself out.

JayinKitsap · Fri May 13, 2022 1:06 am

It is a big crack up :roll:

GDB wrote:
Looks like some grift involved with the LCS class that's not all it's cracked up to be;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beNUTnJjPNI

This is a real classic, yes a lot of amatuer hour but he has some interesting facts. As a structural I see right away where the problem is. Go to 2:30 in the video, just to the left of the left red arrow would be a very high flexural stress location. Imagine the hull rolling +/- 30 degrees. The outer cat hull will almost lift out of the water or be buried when the tunnel is filled. Those hull plates on the top of the tunnel would get slapped massively with pressures on the order of 500 PSF. The flex points at the left red arrow are relatively shallow so there will be a good amount of bowing in the deck, however the upper deck house is partially tied with columns to the main hull but is part of a trapazoid tube with this tri-hull. Add in torsion in the long axis and it being welded aluminum it is a textbook case for fatigue cracking.

Waves are design event stress levels, with wave periods in the 3 second or longer. Well that's 30K cycles in a 24 hour storm. Lots of stress cycles quick.

Some will claim that all is well and things will be fine.

Avatar2go · Fri May 13, 2022 6:31 am

The LCS deck plating transfers loads to the bulkheads beneath. In this case there is some cracking in those plates around the base of the superstructure. Cracking at that location in ships is not that unusual, especially in aluminum ships with lesser tensile strength than steel.

This is a warranty issue, so Austal will conduct a stress analysis, repair and install reinforcing materials, as the ships go through maintenance availabilities. The ship that was cited here (LCS-12 Omaha) entered an availability in February.

GDB · Fri May 13, 2022 8:23 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
It is a big crack up
GDB wrote:
Looks like some grift involved with the LCS class that's not all it's cracked up to be;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beNUTnJjPNI

This is a real classic, yes a lot of amatuer hour but he has some interesting facts. As a structural I see right away where the problem is. Go to 2:30 in the video, just to the left of the left red arrow would be a very high flexural stress location. Imagine the hull rolling +/- 30 degrees. The outer cat hull will almost lift out of the water or be buried when the tunnel is filled. Those hull plates on the top of the tunnel would get slapped massively with pressures on the order of 500 PSF. The flex points at the left red arrow are relatively shallow so there will be a good amount of bowing in the deck, however the upper deck house is partially tied with columns to the main hull but is part of a trapazoid tube with this tri-hull. Add in torsion in the long axis and it being welded aluminum it is a textbook case for fatigue cracking.

Waves are design event stress levels, with wave periods in the 3 second or longer. Well that's 30K cycles in a 24 hour storm. Lots of stress cycles quick.

Some will claim that all is well and things will be fine.

I waited for this channel to comment since the person running it is a 20 year USN veteran, not a ‘if it isn’t invented here it’s no good type’ either. Plus it’s fairly common knowledge that the LCS is a lemon, they are being retired very early for a reason and a sudden change of tactics isn’t one of them.
Plus the cost of the things before any major repairs.

Vintage · Fri May 13, 2022 9:47 am

GDB wrote:
they are being retired very early for a reason

But nobody can state that reason.

The guy with the overly emotional video tried to make a huge complex thing out of something that is essentially simple. Most trimarans are sail boats, and as trimarans they have lots of advantages, however they also have some problems. One of the problems is that in heavy seas and wind, they can be pitched up or over so that wind can get underneath the boat and flip it. Another is that if they turn and run with the wind they can get going so fast that they bury their bow in a wave and this also will bring them inverted. The Independence class has neither of these problems because it is heavily built: wind can't flip them and they won't over speed running downwind.

The problem the Independence class does share with smaller versions is that the crossbeam that carries the load of the wings has to be immensely strong; if it is understrength, flexing or even complete failure can occur. The crossbeam structure of the Independence class needs beefing up, it appears they have already designed the fix and all of the class will be brought up to original specification. Fixes of this magnitude have been apparently been done on other Navy ships in the past, but we don't yet know how much this is going to cost or how much of that cost the Navy will have to bear.

Again I have to say that I am surprised that there has been absolutely no discussion of these ship's intended mission, or why it has been decided to cancel that mission. Obviously, they were intended to be able to land a Marine combat team on virtually any coastline in the world and to provide support for such a team with their guns and helicopters. Also there should be no doubt that these ships were meant to work either alone or hand in hand with the Wasp class landing ships which can provide F-35 air support among other things. They appear to me to be a valuable asset.

GDB · Fri May 13, 2022 10:19 am

Vintage wrote:
GDB wrote:
they are being retired very early for a reason

But nobody can state that reason.

The guy with the overly emotional video tried to make a huge complex thing out of something that is essentially simple. Most trimarans are sail boats, and as trimarans they have lots of advantages, however they also have some problems. One of the problems is that in heavy seas and wind, they can be pitched up or over so that wind can get underneath the boat and flip it. Another is that if they turn and run with the wind they can get going so fast that they bury their bow in a wave and this also will bring them inverted. The Independence class has neither of these problems because it is heavily built: wind can't flip them and they won't over speed running downwind.

The problem the Independence class does share with smaller versions is that the crossbeam that carries the load of the wings has to be immensely strong; if it is understrength, flexing or even complete failure can occur. The crossbeam structure of the Independence class needs beefing up, it appears they have already designed the fix and all of the class will be brought up to original specification. Fixes of this magnitude have been apparently been done on other Navy ships in the past, but we don't yet know how much this is going to cost or how much of that cost the Navy will have to bear.

He did go into detail why the ASW package was dropped, along with the much vaunted ability to rapidly change out mission modules has not been possible. Which was a major part of the justification for them.
Unmentioned in this link though he has before, as long as elsewhere, crew size is too small.
But most shocking though, albeit maybe we should not be, the huge profits Austral has made on this. For screwing up.

Again I have to say that I am surprised that there has been absolutely no discussion of these ship's intended mission, or why it has been decided to cancel that mission. Obviously, they were intended to be able to land a Marine combat team on virtually any coastline in the world and to provide support for such a team with their guns and helicopters. Also there should be no doubt that these ships were meant to work either alone or hand in hand with the Wasp class landing ships which can provide F-35 air support among other things. They appear to me to be a valuable asset.

He said so, also elsewhere with many reputable sources, the ASW mission was scrapped because it did not work.
The whole justification for the ships was the ability to rapidly change out different mission modules, cannot do that either.
Not mentioned here but plenty elsewhere, crew size too small.
We know about the propulsion issues, there goes another requirement, high speed.
And really? These cracked vessels unable to operate in anything more than calm seas.
It's as shown by Austral's profits, a grift.
They are being well rewarded for failure.
One suspects a revolving door with USN brass and Austral corporate offices.

Vintage · Fri May 13, 2022 10:57 am

GDB wrote:

That's a lot of hyperbole. You've overstated every one of your points.
Its a waste of time trying to pit logic against emotion. So I'll drop out of this subject.

GDB · Fri May 13, 2022 11:15 am

Vintage wrote:
GDB wrote:

That's a lot of hyperbole. You've overstated every one of your points.
Its a waste of time trying to pit logic against emotion. So I'll drop out of this subject.

Why not go to that channel and say the same? And/or the other well sourced reputable ones?
Quite apart from the USN’s own reports.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net