Re: The only thing faster than the Navy's new LCS is its cost increases

On Nov 10, 2:10 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
g lof2 <glof_...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

:On Nov 9, 8:27 pm, hcobb <henry.c...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> On Nov 9, 6:18 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>
:> > I suspect his estimate is based on playing with the numbers.  The
:> > following statement is made:
:>
:> > "When the Navy decided go to LCS, it said it wanted replace 56 ships
:> > on a one-for-one basis," including frigate and minesweepers. "When you
:> > take a look at the replacement cost for those ships, even if LCS comes
:> > in at [an average cost of] $550 million, which I don’t believe will
:> > happen, you will replace 56 ships on a one-for-one basis for no more
:> > than 20 percent more than the replacement costs for those ships."
:>
:> > However, what you're not told is that those ships, which you get by
:> > paying 20% more than total replacement cost of the existing ships,
:> > cannot do ANY of the missions.  To account for that, you have to add
:> > in the cost of the mission packages, which aren't coming in as
:> > low-cost, either.
:>
:> The LCS is a poor replacement for the FFG.  Where's the overlap in
:> capabilities?  (Pre-gelding...)
:>
:> Where Freedom shines is as a replacement for DDGs.  Most of the time
:> the LCS fleet will be doing routine patrols dealing with commercial
:> ships and small boats.  This frees the DDG fleet for deep sea ASW, AAW
:> and ABM missions.
:>
:> Reducing the classes in service will also simplify planning and
:> logistics.
:>
:
:Well once again  Henry got it right, The LCS as currently designed can
:act as a poor man's replacement for destroyers in low threat areas.
:Indeed you might think about them as the equal of WWII corvettes. More
:so since they are good helo platform for SH-60s (which means we better
:order a whole lot more Seahawks) will make the useful ASW hunters.
:

I fail to see how "Henry got it right".  Perhaps you can explain to me
how a ship can be inadequate to be a replacement for an FFG, yet can
shine as a replacement for a ship that is much, much more capable than
an FFG.  I agree with him that these ships are not an adequate
replacement for the more general purpose FFGs.  However, by that
token, they are also even worse replacements for the much more capable
DDGs.


You are more correct, in that these are ships that are filling a niche
that we currently don't have a platform in. Something more along the
lines of a patrol corvette than an FFG or DDG.

Fred, yes, not all missions requires ships with the capablities of a
FFG, let alone a DDG. In low threat areas, where you don't need the
self-defences found on DDG and FFG, why should be spend billions on
ships with this equipment. We have had gunboat and peace cruisers in
the past to handle these missions, and the LCS are can handle them
today.

Still as a replacement for FFG and DDG, LCS have short coming,
especial when operating in high threat zone where they are subject to
missile attacks.

Therefore it can be said that they are not a replacement FFG (all the
time) LCS can replace DDG (some of the time)


I wouldn't consider them particularly good ASW platforms merely based
on their ability to carry a helo or two.


They may not be good as Spruances amd Burke IIAs as ASW platform, but
they have sonar and with the ASW module they can operate in deep water
as well as the littoral. Now I for one can see developing a special
ASW mission module with SQR-19X and other deep water tools as a future
project,


:
:One thing that still concerns me is why many of you think that the LSC
:seaframes cost half a billion dollars each.  True all four prototypes
:will cost that much, But if the LCSs ever get into full production
:with multi-year contracts the cost will be cut in half, or more.
:

I'd like a pair of those rose coloured glasses, too.  I think you're
kidding yourself about that price point.


This is proven historical fact, not wishful thinking. If we start
build ships at higher rates, and purchasing steel, equipment and parts
in larger lots, then the cost of of the ship WILL drop.

Look at the last Burkes IIA for example.

:
:Maybe
:fully equipped with one or two mission modules might raise the cost as
:high as the predicted half billion mark, but then it would be the
:useless hulls you complain about.
:

Without the mission modules they pretty much are useless hulls and
we'd be better off building much cheaper corvettes.

Limited usefulness yes, but then the navy has plan to by alot more
mission modules that seaframes, so lack of modules should not be a
problem.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Cost of U.S. =?windows-1252?Q?Navy=92s_LCS_Rises_Again_?=
    ... Cost of U.S. Navy’s LCS Rises Again ... The price to buy each of the U.S. Navy’s first two Littoral Combat Ships has crashed through the $500 million barrier, and the final tab to deliver the ships is well over $600 million apiece, according to service budget documents released Feb. 4. ... Soaring cost growth has severely disrupted the program, which once envisioned the purchase of a series of relatively inexpensive, $220 million warships that would take about two years to build. ... the Navy revealed that costs had exploded on Lockheed’s first ship. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Cost of U.S. =?windows-1252?Q?Navy=92s_LCS_Rises_Again?= =?windows-1252?Q?_?=
    ... The price to buy each of the U.S. Navy’s first two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) has crashed through the $500 million barrier, and the final tab to deliver the ships is well over $600 million apiece, according to service budget documents released Feb. 4. ... Soaring cost growth has severely disrupted the program, which once envisioned the purchase of a series of relatively inexpensive, $220 million warships that would take about two years to build. ... the Navy revealed that costs had exploded on Lockheed’s first ship. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: The only thing faster than the Navys new LCS is its cost increases
    ... :>> take a look at the replacement cost for those ships, ... :> The LCS is a poor replacement for the FFG. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: The only thing faster than the Navys new LCS is its cost increases
    ... "When the Navy decided go to LCS, it said it wanted replace 56 ships ... take a look at the replacement cost for those ships, ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: The only thing faster than the Navys new LCS is its cost increases
    ... take a look at the replacement cost for those ships, ... The LCS is a poor replacement for the FFG. ...
    (sci.military.naval)