Quite a dilemma, then. Let China be a bully in the region because it's good business, and "promotes world peace," or be prepared to respond to any of their excessive extreme behaviors. Money usually wins over ethics. Sorry, Asia. China's your new daddy. Leave us alone; we're busy with our money and trade goods. Previous Message
Ralph,
Both you and Bill bring valid points to the table. I would argue though the larger issues is the geopolitical strategy of the United States. Are we intent on following the strategy set out in the early 90s ("The New World Order") or are we going to divorce ourselves from that strategy and embark on a new one. One that potentially divorces the country from the strategy that views China as a potential partner and our source of manufactured goods.
There are powerful forces at play here, none the which is the trillions of dollars that have been invested by the west in developing infrastructure in China that are at risk of not generating a return. Make no mistake, the individuals beholden to these investments are not in a big hurry to embrace a strategy that would view China as an adversary. This is a large group of business people and politicians in the United States and Europe. They are not in a big hurry to spend money to on systems to fight the Chinese. A good case in point is the recent deferal of the LAW program.
There is a lack of vision, one formulated by the geopolitical strategy embarked upon in 1990/1991. We are still wed to that strategy. It remains the predominant strategy of the United States of America. Programs and funding for programs will align to that strategy. LCS, unto itself, aligns as a platform to fight small countries in a littoral environment. Certainly not a platform ready to engage the PLAN (Chinese Navy) in an all out assault on Taiwan.
Without a vision that aligns to the geopolitical strategy of the country there is no hope that funding will be made available to properly develop and deploy systems to address the situation at hand. Welcome to the late 1930s, we are back in that in the same vortex. But, unfortunately with less clarity of that time and no manufacturing base left to fall back on.
Bill Previous Message
Exactly the other way around...plenty of vision, not nearly enough money! Congress has run the country on continuing resolutions for decades. Long term programs (anything requiring development) do not function in this environment. They need to be sure of future funding. An idea and program pop up today, then is gone in a continued budget without funding for it. (Or proceeds in a nearly dormant state and pace because it is underfunded.) Oh, but hey, now there's funding for some other pet project...until the next continuing resolution kills that, too. That pattern has existed for too long now. It has created chaos in all the services, particularly the Air Force and the Navy. Congress can barely manage to keep the existing operational force going, never mind develop anything new.
By the time autonomous drones become operational (becacause their funding starts and stops, too in this budget environment...they are still developmental items) and actually do start doing these functions, LCS will have served most of its planned life. Your "slow death" is in fact their operational lifetime. Production LCS started commissioning in 2015...10 years ago. They will be around another 10 anyway while you tell us they are dying and their replacements are eventually coming. They were built for 25 years.
Zumwalts were always technology demonstrators. They were created to give hands on experience with new tech. They are doing exactly that. So, your criticism that it is not an operational platform is silly. None of the Ghost Fleet Overlord ships is operational either. Yet, they and the Zumwalts are providing real world data to the Navy so it can reach the glorious drone future you want us all to marvel at. What are those drones going to fire? Hypersonics? Zumwalt contributed to that... Speaking of arsenal ships... You do realize that the stated mission of the LUSV is arsenal ship, right...?
You love to criticize. Criticism for its own sake, however, is an unenlightened exercise.
It's not "if" a fight breaks out in the Pacific. It's "when". And that is the key to everything. Because Congress can't keep anything steadily funded, we are proceeding at a snail's pace when we could be going a good deal faster. Time is our best weapon. "One day" (at this rate, about 20 years from now) we'll have that drone force, and all the other weapons we plan to be optimally able to stop the PLAN. Meantime, I find great good news in learning China has started to completely re-think their Taiwan invasion plans from their observations of the Ukraine conflict. Where not too long ago their invasion looked imminent, it now seems a little further down the pike. They want to develop a few new weapons, too, it seems. Buys us more time. We desperately need time. (Or money. Time is money. Both would be an unbelievable luxury.) Previous Message
Both Zumwalt and LCS are dying a slow death.
The Navy has money to spend but eventually drones will take over the mission of mine hunting and mine placement. Wherever surviving LCS port especially in a foreign nation they will be a feel good item (Uncle Sam has your back) or speed bump. As the Houthis rebels have demonstrated the proliferation of technology to create Anti-Ship weapons that reach out and destroy you is not an LCS mission. Zumwalt will make little enhanced contribution to blue water operations that other platforms can not already do even if hypersonics are successfully integrated aboard ship. The Navy’s very expensive arsenal ship. If that.
The Navy has lacked vision but not money. That is coming to an end as the money is needed elsewhere.
If a fight breaks out in the Pacific the USN May repeat its history of 1942 but not its glory of 1945. Hopefully that will be enough. Previous Message
I just changed my search terms. I had been searching leathilty and survivability. Now, I directly searched Freedom class NSM.
Got this, and very up to date:
https://news.usni.org/2024/12/11/lcs-is-back-with-firepower-upgrades-including-new-missile-launchers-says-secnav-del-toro
Helps some to explain the delay. Apparently, with the Mk 70 launcher, they've now created yet another new program, and NSM is now in this one. (Can you say "attention deficit disorder," boys and girls?)
So, I just learned something new. Woohoo. I watched the commissioning of the USS Nantucket on a livestream video they offered, and saw the MK70 on it. I knew they were playing around with those, but did not realize it was getting "this serious." When deployed, they will be on the flight deck...the only place there is room. That then ruins flight ops. I think this will be a truly modular system. When desired, they will be set up on the flight deck. Otherwise, that will be used for flight ops, and they will only have their NSMs forward.
So...you wanted to build a model. Get info on the Mk 70 launchers, and then put some aboard your model, on the flight deck.
FWIW Previous Message
Thank you!
I thought about building another model of a Freedom class - one of the last ships with the new mast, SeaRAM - and NSM. I will have to wait if the Leathality and Survivability Upgrade will be done or not. It will likely contain some additional differences to the early ships.
The Saudi Arabian MMSC version would be another option, but - as far as I know - these ships are also not yet completed.
Responses