Thanks for that, saved me doing it. It is staggering that he does not understand such a simple concept
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
Yes but you had one mod and a couple of other psoters try to politely suggest you were makeing a goose of yourself yet you persisted. To the point you came out with this gem
I note this post has been removed (whihc was a smart move) and thought Dirt Dart was simply making a factual statement that such antics will get you written off as not making any real contribution. We all make mistakes but a bit of reading helps.
To summarise what you were suggesting (correct me if I am wrong) and that is the Chinese mount a bloody big laser inshore in lieu of DF-21, at which point you were ask about haow far inshore and the whole line of sight issue came up about range. The rest of it sounded a tad like star wars............. fictional.
Last edited by a moderator:
strengthoflove
Banned Member
Good on you genius. Changing your name didn't help Resolute. Now banned permanently
Last edited by a moderator:
Go crawl back in your hole you pathetic, immature prat.
Oh by the way this is a multinational site and while I do not personally know all the members I honestly doubt the majority of posters are white, not that race, religion or place of origin tends to matter to mature professionals.
To move the thread on a bit, quite a nice milestone for the X-47B; first shore based arrested landing AND some nice info about future testing
NAVAIR: X-47B Completes First Shore-Based Arrested Landing - YouTube
Arrested Landing Completes X-47B Unmanned UCAS-D Preparations For Carrier Tests - Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News
Just in case anyone wanted a bit more, here's the X-47Bs first land based catapult launch
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc7Jo4XmamA"]X-47B First Land-Based Catapult Launch - YouTube[/nomedia]
NAVAIR: X-47B Completes First Shore-Based Arrested Landing - YouTube
Arrested Landing Completes X-47B Unmanned UCAS-D Preparations For Carrier Tests - Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News
Glad to hear about the carrier flight testing, real step forward for the UCAS-D program.
Just in case anyone wanted a bit more, here's the X-47Bs first land based catapult launch
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc7Jo4XmamA"]X-47B First Land-Based Catapult Launch - YouTube[/nomedia]
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Honestly, I'm still surprised they loaded an other X-47B on the "Bush" months ago. prior to even attempting a shore-based arrested landing.
Think of the fiasco it would have been if it had been unable to hook the cable like the F-35C. Or, if some structural damage is still to be discovered.
Feels like the program is running a bit behind schedule. You have to think all involved would have preferred to have completed a significant shored-based arrested landing evaluation long before they put a bird on a boat and set sail.
If memory serves, it was the Truman, not the Bush. Anyway, it was just for deck testing and neither landing or takeoff was on the agenda so no real risk.
Yup, deck tests on USS Harry S Truman, here's a video of it
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t84a89NvQ7A"]X-47B Deck Tests USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) - YouTube[/nomedia]
But a bit more info's coming out about the tests on the Bush in the following link, whilst there IS a launch from the ship planned - some "sources" date it as the 14th May, but officially not confirmed - it will do several touch and go landings on the deck. It won't actually land on the deck of the carrier itself. The wording the article uses is "at least one launch", so presumably the plan is to go out to sea, launch the bird, come back into the dock for the aircraft to be loaded back onto the ship, if the plan is for more than one launch to occur.
Unsurprising really, considering it's only just caught a wire the other day.
Navy Plans to Launch Carrier UAV Next Tuesday | USNI News
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t84a89NvQ7A"]X-47B Deck Tests USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) - YouTube[/nomedia]
But a bit more info's coming out about the tests on the Bush in the following link, whilst there IS a launch from the ship planned - some "sources" date it as the 14th May, but officially not confirmed - it will do several touch and go landings on the deck. It won't actually land on the deck of the carrier itself. The wording the article uses is "at least one launch", so presumably the plan is to go out to sea, launch the bird, come back into the dock for the aircraft to be loaded back onto the ship, if the plan is for more than one launch to occur.
Unsurprising really, considering it's only just caught a wire the other day.
Navy Plans to Launch Carrier UAV Next Tuesday | USNI News
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
The Navy announced today that over the next year five additional Cyclone class patrol coastal ships, and the Patrol Coastal Squadron One command will be moved to, and permanently assigned to NSA Bahrain.
Three ships will make the move this summer, with two more to follow sometime next year. This will put ten of the Navy's thirteen Cyclone PCs in the US Fifth Fleet AOR.
I think it is likely this move has more to do with managing the workload of the older Cyclones, than anything else.
Navy to move 5 coastal patrol ships to Bahrain - Stripes - Independent U.S. military news from Iraq, Afghanistan and bases worldwide
Three ships will make the move this summer, with two more to follow sometime next year. This will put ten of the Navy's thirteen Cyclone PCs in the US Fifth Fleet AOR.
I think it is likely this move has more to do with managing the workload of the older Cyclones, than anything else.
Navy to move 5 coastal patrol ships to Bahrain - Stripes - Independent U.S. military news from Iraq, Afghanistan and bases worldwide
Seen any news on the other Drone aircraft they are looking at for the program? I remember the Avenger but that's pretty much it and nothing sense it first came out.
Yup, USN plans on placing 4 UCLASS contracts with Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Atomics + Northrop Grumman
US Navy plans to place four UCLASS development contracts
Lockheed reveals UCLASS design - The DEW Line
The DEW Line: Lockheed UCLASS
The last I heard about Boeing was that they're *very close*, but that was last year. In one of the links about Lockheeds design, they talk about having VLO data being readily available from the F-35 in terms of surface coatings which - from news out recently - is supposed to be far more easier to maintain than any previous type of coating.
Boeing is "very close" to a competitive UCLASS design
EDIT: From this dodbuzz link, it supposedly gives us all the products the companies are pitching for the tender
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Em14UbNUeA&feature=player_embedded&list=UUJWcF0ex7_doPdIQGbVpDsQ"]Skunk Works® UCLASS Concept Video - YouTube[/nomedia]
US Navy plans to place four UCLASS development contracts
LockMart have apparently built a full scale mock up of their "Sea Ghost" flying wing, but I have to say, In my humble can't believe that Northrup Grumman won't get the final contract. Just look how much further along the process is compared to the rest, land based catapult + arrested landings and going out for a proper carrier launch any day now? I mean I get that - IIRC - the X-47B is a technology demonstrator, and will then become a final operational design, but as far as I know the other contenders don't even have flying demonstrators for what they want to propose just yet.
Lockheed reveals UCLASS design - The DEW Line
The DEW Line: Lockheed UCLASS
The last I heard about Boeing was that they're *very close*, but that was last year. In one of the links about Lockheeds design, they talk about having VLO data being readily available from the F-35 in terms of surface coatings which - from news out recently - is supposed to be far more easier to maintain than any previous type of coating.
Boeing is "very close" to a competitive UCLASS design
EDIT: From this dodbuzz link, it supposedly gives us all the products the companies are pitching for the tender
- Northrup Grumman - X-47B
- Lockheed Martin - Sea Ghost
- Boeing - Phantom Ray
http://defensetech.org/2013/04/05/navy-seeks-candidates-for-carrier-based-drones/ - General Atomics - Sea Avenger
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Em14UbNUeA&feature=player_embedded&list=UUJWcF0ex7_doPdIQGbVpDsQ"]Skunk Works® UCLASS Concept Video - YouTube[/nomedia]
The Navy owns a lot of the resulting tech and research NG is undertaking and will be making these available to the other contenders so any advantage may be marginal at best. GA's pitch of a proven, low-risk design contrasts with the competition so it will be interesting to see how the relative Cost vs. Performance comparions play out.
Yea the weird part was I actually heard about the Avenger way before the others then nothing.
Thanks ya'll.
Thanks ya'll.
Latest on the LCS below. I wonder if the USN will finally uparmor the LCS with bigger guns, VLS, etc. to correct the deficiencies identified by Rear Admiral Perez's report on the ships?
Bloomberg.com
May 10, 2013
Navy $37 Billion Ships Seen Unsuitable Have 2-Year Window
By Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg News
The U.S. Navy has two years to convince critics, from lawmakers to some in its own ranks, that its troubled $37 billion Littoral Combat Ship program is worth continuing beyond the 24 vessels already under contract.
The Navy must make its case by 2015 for 28 more of the ships if it’s to continue the shipbuilding effort beyond the vessels it has already committed to buy from teams led by Lockheed Martin Corp. and Austal Ltd.
A confidential Navy study obtained this week by Bloomberg News found that the ships are too lightly armed, plans to swap equipment for different missions are impractical and the decision to build two versions complicates logistics and maintenance. Failure to resolve such issues will result in “ships that are ill-suited to execute” warfighting needs, Rear Admiral Samuel Perez wrote in the March 2012 report.
“The Perez report underscored nagging doubts” about the Littoral Combat Ship, according to Byron Callan, a defense analyst with Capital Alpha Partners LLC in Washington. He said in an e-mail that he would be surprised if all 52 planned ships are built and that it’s possible only those already under contract will be completed.
As the Pentagon faces $500 billion in across-the-board budget cuts over nine years, the Littoral Combat Ship is an example of a troubled project that has sailed on with the support of a military seeking the most advanced warfighting equipment possible, companies eager to build it and politicians hungry for the jobs created.
Shipbuilding plan
The Navy’s latest 30-year shipbuilding plan, submitted to Congress today, projects buying all 52 vessels by 2029, part of a construction budget that the service estimates will average $15.4 billion annually through 2023, up from $10.9 billion in the Pentagon’s pending fiscal 2014 request.
The service plans to request $70.4 billion for construction of 41 vessels through 2018, according to the plan. That includes $28.8 billion for 10 Virginia-class submarines, $15.7 billion for nine DDG-51 destroyers and $6.7 billion for the Littoral Combat Ships.
“The Navy is circling the wagons as I have never seen” to protect the Littoral Combat Ship, said Everett Pyatt, the Navy’s deputy for shipbuilding in the 1980s and now a critic of the ship. “They are unwilling to admit any errors.”
'Best-performing'
Officials led by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said this week that changes in the ship already are under way to resolve the shortcomings cited by Perez. While the Littoral Combat Ship started out as a “mess,” it has “become one of our best-performing programs,” Mabus told the House defense appropriations subcommittee on May 7.
Even critics of the ship, such as Senator John McCain, said canceling it now is unlikely because the Navy can’t wait to develop an alternative for a small, speedy and adaptable vessel.
“This is the problem with all of these programs -- once you get into production it’s incredibly difficult, and then what’s the alternative?” McCain said in an interview. At a Senate committee hearing on May 8, the Arizona Republican told Navy brass, “We need to fix it, or find something else quickly.”
No fallback
The Navy “doesn’t have a fallback position if it killed the program now,” said Callan, citing the need to replace the Navy’s FFG-7 frigates that are being retired as well as mine-countermeasure ships that are aging.
The Navy agreed to buy four ships individually prior to signing a contract in 2010 to purchase 20 more, with 10 each from Lockheed and Austal.
The Littoral Combat Ship’s supporters in Congress would be likely to block any move to stop building the vessels already under contract, and breaking contracts would subject the Pentagon to substantial costs and litigation, according to Ben Freeman, a defense analyst and critic of the ship.
“We’re under contract to buy 20 ships and would have to pay fees if the contract weren’t fulfilled,” Freeman of the Washington-based Project on Government Oversight said in an e-mail. “Once the contract ends, however, cancellation becomes much more likely. There are simply too many problems with the ship, and too few missions that it can realistically fulfill.”
'Real test'
The military services are required by law to document for Congress their cases for multiyear contracts, including projected savings over buying one ship at a time.
That’s when “the real test for the program’s continuing to 52 vessels comes,” said Robert Levinson, a defense analyst for Bloomberg Government in Washington.
The ship’s flaws, “combined with budget constraints, could force the Navy to reduce the final number, significantly redesign the ship or even cancel the buy altogether,” he said.
A steel-hulled version of the ship is being made in Marinette, Wisconsin, by the Lockheed-led team, and an aluminum trimaran is being built in Mobile, Alabama, by the group led by Austal.
Construction costs have doubled to $440 million per ship from an original goal of $220 million. The Navy is requesting $2 billion to buy four ships in fiscal 2014 -- two from Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed and two from Henderson, Australia-based Austal.
Costs double
The last four vessels in the group of 20 will be requested next year in the Pentagon’s fiscal 2015 budget. After that, the Navy must present its plan for the final 28 vessels, including whether it will curtail or cut the program or go with only one of the two designs. That’s when the program is most vulnerable to critics.
“We understand what is at stake and will get this right,” Vice Admiral Richard Hunt, head of the service’s LCS Council, intended to improve the program, said in a statement.
“I have great confidence in the LCS program,” he said. “It provides needed capability now combined with the ability to adapt to changing requirements in the future.”
The Littoral Combat Ship was conceived in 2001 as an innovative development program that would compress the time needed to field a new warship, according to Loren Thompson, a defense analyst and industry consultant with the Arlington, Virginia-based-Lexington Institute.
“Today, it is producing ships, but those ships do not have all the equipment or personnel they need to accomplish planned missions,” he said. The program’s success “hinges on bringing capabilities into alignment with expectations over the next two years,” he said in an e-mailed statement.
Pyatt, the former Navy official, agreed that the service has only a few years to make its case.
“I hope we can end purchases after the ships needed for drug control, piracy control and similar low-risk tasks are purchased,” he said in an e-mailed statement. “I think that is about 20 ships.”
Bloomberg.com
May 10, 2013
Navy $37 Billion Ships Seen Unsuitable Have 2-Year Window
By Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg News
The U.S. Navy has two years to convince critics, from lawmakers to some in its own ranks, that its troubled $37 billion Littoral Combat Ship program is worth continuing beyond the 24 vessels already under contract.
The Navy must make its case by 2015 for 28 more of the ships if it’s to continue the shipbuilding effort beyond the vessels it has already committed to buy from teams led by Lockheed Martin Corp. and Austal Ltd.
A confidential Navy study obtained this week by Bloomberg News found that the ships are too lightly armed, plans to swap equipment for different missions are impractical and the decision to build two versions complicates logistics and maintenance. Failure to resolve such issues will result in “ships that are ill-suited to execute” warfighting needs, Rear Admiral Samuel Perez wrote in the March 2012 report.
“The Perez report underscored nagging doubts” about the Littoral Combat Ship, according to Byron Callan, a defense analyst with Capital Alpha Partners LLC in Washington. He said in an e-mail that he would be surprised if all 52 planned ships are built and that it’s possible only those already under contract will be completed.
As the Pentagon faces $500 billion in across-the-board budget cuts over nine years, the Littoral Combat Ship is an example of a troubled project that has sailed on with the support of a military seeking the most advanced warfighting equipment possible, companies eager to build it and politicians hungry for the jobs created.
Shipbuilding plan
The Navy’s latest 30-year shipbuilding plan, submitted to Congress today, projects buying all 52 vessels by 2029, part of a construction budget that the service estimates will average $15.4 billion annually through 2023, up from $10.9 billion in the Pentagon’s pending fiscal 2014 request.
The service plans to request $70.4 billion for construction of 41 vessels through 2018, according to the plan. That includes $28.8 billion for 10 Virginia-class submarines, $15.7 billion for nine DDG-51 destroyers and $6.7 billion for the Littoral Combat Ships.
“The Navy is circling the wagons as I have never seen” to protect the Littoral Combat Ship, said Everett Pyatt, the Navy’s deputy for shipbuilding in the 1980s and now a critic of the ship. “They are unwilling to admit any errors.”
'Best-performing'
Officials led by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said this week that changes in the ship already are under way to resolve the shortcomings cited by Perez. While the Littoral Combat Ship started out as a “mess,” it has “become one of our best-performing programs,” Mabus told the House defense appropriations subcommittee on May 7.
Even critics of the ship, such as Senator John McCain, said canceling it now is unlikely because the Navy can’t wait to develop an alternative for a small, speedy and adaptable vessel.
“This is the problem with all of these programs -- once you get into production it’s incredibly difficult, and then what’s the alternative?” McCain said in an interview. At a Senate committee hearing on May 8, the Arizona Republican told Navy brass, “We need to fix it, or find something else quickly.”
No fallback
The Navy “doesn’t have a fallback position if it killed the program now,” said Callan, citing the need to replace the Navy’s FFG-7 frigates that are being retired as well as mine-countermeasure ships that are aging.
The Navy agreed to buy four ships individually prior to signing a contract in 2010 to purchase 20 more, with 10 each from Lockheed and Austal.
The Littoral Combat Ship’s supporters in Congress would be likely to block any move to stop building the vessels already under contract, and breaking contracts would subject the Pentagon to substantial costs and litigation, according to Ben Freeman, a defense analyst and critic of the ship.
“We’re under contract to buy 20 ships and would have to pay fees if the contract weren’t fulfilled,” Freeman of the Washington-based Project on Government Oversight said in an e-mail. “Once the contract ends, however, cancellation becomes much more likely. There are simply too many problems with the ship, and too few missions that it can realistically fulfill.”
'Real test'
The military services are required by law to document for Congress their cases for multiyear contracts, including projected savings over buying one ship at a time.
That’s when “the real test for the program’s continuing to 52 vessels comes,” said Robert Levinson, a defense analyst for Bloomberg Government in Washington.
The ship’s flaws, “combined with budget constraints, could force the Navy to reduce the final number, significantly redesign the ship or even cancel the buy altogether,” he said.
A steel-hulled version of the ship is being made in Marinette, Wisconsin, by the Lockheed-led team, and an aluminum trimaran is being built in Mobile, Alabama, by the group led by Austal.
Construction costs have doubled to $440 million per ship from an original goal of $220 million. The Navy is requesting $2 billion to buy four ships in fiscal 2014 -- two from Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed and two from Henderson, Australia-based Austal.
Costs double
The last four vessels in the group of 20 will be requested next year in the Pentagon’s fiscal 2015 budget. After that, the Navy must present its plan for the final 28 vessels, including whether it will curtail or cut the program or go with only one of the two designs. That’s when the program is most vulnerable to critics.
“We understand what is at stake and will get this right,” Vice Admiral Richard Hunt, head of the service’s LCS Council, intended to improve the program, said in a statement.
“I have great confidence in the LCS program,” he said. “It provides needed capability now combined with the ability to adapt to changing requirements in the future.”
The Littoral Combat Ship was conceived in 2001 as an innovative development program that would compress the time needed to field a new warship, according to Loren Thompson, a defense analyst and industry consultant with the Arlington, Virginia-based-Lexington Institute.
“Today, it is producing ships, but those ships do not have all the equipment or personnel they need to accomplish planned missions,” he said. The program’s success “hinges on bringing capabilities into alignment with expectations over the next two years,” he said in an e-mailed statement.
Pyatt, the former Navy official, agreed that the service has only a few years to make its case.
“I hope we can end purchases after the ships needed for drug control, piracy control and similar low-risk tasks are purchased,” he said in an e-mailed statement. “I think that is about 20 ships.”
db2646
I have read V.Adm Ray Perez's report. Rather than disagreeing with the USN leadership on the LCS programme implementation, the report was a critical review of the programme to-date (1 yr ago). The report stated that the ships and the mission modules had the potential to be an outstanding asset and made no recommendation to either reduce numbers or change the concept.
I guess it depends on who you believe, politicians and journalists or navy leaders?
You choose.
I have read V.Adm Ray Perez's report. Rather than disagreeing with the USN leadership on the LCS programme implementation, the report was a critical review of the programme to-date (1 yr ago). The report stated that the ships and the mission modules had the potential to be an outstanding asset and made no recommendation to either reduce numbers or change the concept.
I guess it depends on who you believe, politicians and journalists or navy leaders?
You choose.
The Bloomberg article devoted a single paragraph to the Navy's POV.. bad news sells. Ironically, this Chinese source provides more balance.
U.S. navy secretary defends littoral combat ship program - People's Daily Online
U.S. navy secretary defends littoral combat ship program
(Xinhua)
10:19, May 12, 2013
SINGAPORE, May 11 (Xinhua) -- The United States Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus defended the littoral combat ship (LCS) program on Saturday as once a mess but now one of the best programs.
Speaking to reporters after a ceremony on board the first-in- class LCS Freedom, which has been on a maiden deployment to Singapore, Mabus reiterated that the ship is "going to be one of the important crucial platforms in the United States Navy in the future."
"This is an incredibly capable ship and I am very proud of this program. In terms of the budget, the price of the ship is coming down dramatically," he said.
Freedom arrived in Singapore on April 18 for its maiden eight- month deployment to the region, as part of a U.S. plan to deploy up to four littoral combat ships in Singapore.
Timothy Wilke, the ship's commanding officer, has said it is extremely agile, maneuverable and flexible.
The LCS platforms employ modular mission packages that can be configured for three separate purposes such as surface warfare, mine countermeasures, or anti-submarine warfare.
The U.S. Navy is also hoping for the lessons learned from the port visits and maiden deployment of Freedom to inform follow-on rotational deployments and the overall LCS program.
The littoral combat ships, bought from teams led by Lockheed Martin and Austal, have been subject to doubts and criticism from many, including some of the lawmakers, for its alleged weaknesses.
Bloomberg, citing a confidential Navy study, recently said that the report has found that the ships are too lightly armed, plans to swap equipment for different missions are impractical and the decision to build two versions complicates logistics and maintenance.
The warship experienced power failures recently while moving on its way from North America to Singapore. There were also news reports on its cyber vulnerabilities.
Mabus said that the LCS program is now one of the model programs of the U.S. Navy despite starting out as a "mess."
The U.S. Navy has ordered 24 littoral combat ships so far. Its latest 30-year shipbuilding plan submitted to the Congress on Friday projects buying 52 littoral combat ships by 2029.
Mabus said the cost of the variants of the ship, including the Freedom class and the Independent class, is coming down significantly.
While the cost of the first ship was a bit more than 430 million U.S. dollars, the price for the ten currently under contract is estimated to be around 350 million dollars.
Mabus also said that he was hoping for the allies and friends of the United States to "take a look at it."
"I think not so much for economics, but just for the capabilities of the ship, this is a terrific ship. This ship meets a lot of needs. I think it will be valuable to a lot of countries in the world, a lot of our friends and our allies," he said. We recommend:
U.S. navy secretary defends littoral combat ship program - People's Daily Online
U.S. navy secretary defends littoral combat ship program
(Xinhua)
10:19, May 12, 2013
SINGAPORE, May 11 (Xinhua) -- The United States Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus defended the littoral combat ship (LCS) program on Saturday as once a mess but now one of the best programs.
Speaking to reporters after a ceremony on board the first-in- class LCS Freedom, which has been on a maiden deployment to Singapore, Mabus reiterated that the ship is "going to be one of the important crucial platforms in the United States Navy in the future."
"This is an incredibly capable ship and I am very proud of this program. In terms of the budget, the price of the ship is coming down dramatically," he said.
Freedom arrived in Singapore on April 18 for its maiden eight- month deployment to the region, as part of a U.S. plan to deploy up to four littoral combat ships in Singapore.
Timothy Wilke, the ship's commanding officer, has said it is extremely agile, maneuverable and flexible.
The LCS platforms employ modular mission packages that can be configured for three separate purposes such as surface warfare, mine countermeasures, or anti-submarine warfare.
The U.S. Navy is also hoping for the lessons learned from the port visits and maiden deployment of Freedom to inform follow-on rotational deployments and the overall LCS program.
The littoral combat ships, bought from teams led by Lockheed Martin and Austal, have been subject to doubts and criticism from many, including some of the lawmakers, for its alleged weaknesses.
Bloomberg, citing a confidential Navy study, recently said that the report has found that the ships are too lightly armed, plans to swap equipment for different missions are impractical and the decision to build two versions complicates logistics and maintenance.
The warship experienced power failures recently while moving on its way from North America to Singapore. There were also news reports on its cyber vulnerabilities.
Mabus said that the LCS program is now one of the model programs of the U.S. Navy despite starting out as a "mess."
The U.S. Navy has ordered 24 littoral combat ships so far. Its latest 30-year shipbuilding plan submitted to the Congress on Friday projects buying 52 littoral combat ships by 2029.
Mabus said the cost of the variants of the ship, including the Freedom class and the Independent class, is coming down significantly.
While the cost of the first ship was a bit more than 430 million U.S. dollars, the price for the ten currently under contract is estimated to be around 350 million dollars.
Mabus also said that he was hoping for the allies and friends of the United States to "take a look at it."
"I think not so much for economics, but just for the capabilities of the ship, this is a terrific ship. This ship meets a lot of needs. I think it will be valuable to a lot of countries in the world, a lot of our friends and our allies," he said. We recommend:
You can't really up armor the LCS. To do so would basically make it a new ship. As it is I don't think it can take anything over a 76mm without some serious redesign. Hull just couldn't take say a 5 in gun mount like on the burkes and such.
If they want to up armor and up gun the LCS they would have a frigate. So better to just use the LCS knowledge and lessons to build a frigate from near scratch then.
If they want to up armor and up gun the LCS they would have a frigate. So better to just use the LCS knowledge and lessons to build a frigate from near scratch then.