GIThruster wrote:While we're on the subject, I'd love to hear what the Navy guys here think of the newish Independence class Littoral ships. I'm a big fan of fast, modular, multi-mission, smaller crewed ships to replace the older frigates.
I could tell you but then I'd have to kill myself, and you aren't worth it!
Heh! I was having a discussion in another forum just this morning about Seal Team 6. A friend was saying he didn't think the media should have access to the name of the group that did the snatch-n-grab. I reminded him that we ought to expect there was plenty of counter-intel in whatever was released to the media. For instance, I think it's open to conversation whether the team did a HALO jump, or if they took a minisub off a Tactical Trident.
Either way though, seems obvious to me the thing was orchestrated for POTUS' sake. After all, those captives were taken months ago. Risking a ground action for a single American is not exactly SOP. Imagine if one or two of the SEAL team had been killed for the sake of one American civilian. That's why we don't do these sorts of actions.
It's cool when it works, but we have plenty of experience when it doesn't. We're going to suffer the consequences of the downed Blackhawk in Pakistan during the Bin Laden incident, for the next dozen years. Reports are, the stealth material in the Blackhawk went straight to China.
What does POTUS care? he gets credit for being bold, when in fact NOONE was shooting at him.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
LCS was a good idea implemented (still actually in the attempt phase) really badly. My prediction is that the program dies a slow lingering death like the Patrol Coastals. Eventually morphing into a class split where Tri-hulls and follow-ons end up as sustainers for v-hull combatants. Essentially, tri-hulls end up as mini-amphibs and logistics enablers.
We do need a Littoral Dedicated platform to support access and coverage issues.
We need to be able to support them.
Littoral Platforms do not do well on long endurance and high seas missions(by definition).
We still need Frigates, more so than ever. Long endurance, light all area warfare capable, independant/small group deployers, with robust escort capabilities.
We still need Destroyers as a multirole medium combatant with a focus to Air, Strike, Surface, Subsurface, but not as many as frigates.
We still need Cruisers as a multirole heavy combatant with focus to Air and Large Platform defense. Cruisers will not need to maintain Strike capabilities as they have.
Destroyers have a limited number of peers in other navies. It it the ship(s) to send when Frigates are not robust enough or need some heavier back up.
Cruisers have no real modern peer in other navies.
ASW, Mine Warfare and ISR are going to be enablers in the next fight. Air Defense remains important, but adversaries know that going against an american group is air suicide for both manned, unmanned and anti-ship equipment (there is no certainty you will get through). Strike is also going to be a key fight going forward and more so with persistant and semi-persistant presence that drones bring. More ships will be drone capable.
Littoral Combatants are not big enough to support more than one major function at a time. This will end up being an achilles heel for the program, as well as downrange sustainment.
Air fight and Anti-ship is going to change with Hyper Sonic capability.
ASUW fight is going to change with extended range kinetic weapons.
Terminal defense against anti-ship systems is currently improving faster than anti-ship systems (air breathers and rockets).
The force that can extend and stay is the force that will win.
Future platforms are going to have to accept being hit and staying in the fight.
My 5 cents.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
