# USN Litoral Combat ships



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

At times I wonder what is going on with Western military equipment! Once again another report on problems with the USN littoral combat ships and the suggestion that they are fast turning into an expensive disaster, prone to breakdowns and (in other reports) potentially lacking in offensive or defensive capability. Then there is the new and vastly expensive US joint strike fighter aircraft that have to be grounded because of engine and other failures to the extent that the Pentagon might have to call upon Rolls Royce to re-engine them -- and what a loss of face that would be!

Our American cousins are, however, not the only ones making a balls of military procurement it seems. Great Britain is availing herself of two very large and expensive aircraft carriers that will not have any aircraft, but might eventually purchase the US joint strike fighters modified for carrier deployment if they ever work. Sounds like a good deal, except that enough of those aircraft to equip a carrier might well cost more than the carrier itself.

I suppose that this is what happens occasionally when the limits of science and technology are being pressed, but I wonder: is the real threat from highly advanced countries with highly advanced weapons that must be countered, or is it increasingly from mass movements of people and a few thousand guerrillas with Kalashnikovs? After all, the Western response to the guerrillas in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, has not been all that successful.

https://gcaptain.com/2016/01/22/littoral-combat-ship-sidelined-in-singapore-after-gear-damage/?utm_source=gCaptain+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=35b56ab394-Mailchimp_RSS_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_f50174ef03-35b56ab394-139925085#.VqOQQijNARk


----------



## kewl dude (Jun 1, 2008)

re: report on problems with the USN littoral combat ships

They ARE a new vessel class and what NEW class of vessels does not have teething problems? I am under the impression that two have had reduction gear failures requiring tows into port? 

I also get a kick when folks exclaim that at 50 individuals the crews are too small. Back in my seagoing days of relatively small general cargo stick ships crews of 45-50 were usual. Today cargo ships are huge in comparison. Although cargo usually is no longer worked with ships gear, with crews 25% - 50% of that number.

I am under the impression the Littoral Combat Ships are for use in Littoral waters? Able to go to places where the current frigates and destroyers and cruisers and aircraft carriers cannot due to draft? While retaining the solo trans-ocean capability?

Greg Hayden
Vista, CA USA


----------



## John Dryden (Sep 26, 2009)

I don,t know in which direction you are heading with this one ART 6 but I can confirm there will be no littoral combat ships deployed to Afghanistan.


----------



## LouisB (Dec 23, 2007)

kewl dude said:


> re: report on problems with the USN littoral combat ships
> 
> They ARE a new vessel class and what NEW class of vessels does not have teething problems? I am under the impression that two have had reduction gear failures requiring tows into port?
> 
> ...


Reading the defence blogs the engines were run up and seemingly there was no L.O. supply to the gearboxes. Initial cause was the starting S.O.P. was not followed. The vessel has been on deployment for around a year with regular crew turnarounds.


LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

There are always infantile failures. Whether of defective build or defective operator. For the former there is the guarantee period solution. For the latter there used to be the guarantee engineer although now seldom carried (is this because the owner's staff are getting better or because the builders insurance won't cover their engineer any more?).


----------

