Home » Budget Industry » VIDEO: Littoral Combat Ship USS Little Rock Commissioned in Wintry Weather


VIDEO: Littoral Combat Ship USS Little Rock Commissioned in Wintry Weather

USS Little Rock (LCS-9) commissioning ceremony in Buffalo, N.Y. on Dec. 16, 2017. US Navy Photo

A commissioning ceremony was held in Buffalo, N.Y. today for USS Little Rock (LCS-9), the latest Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship.

The ceremony was held next to the museum ship, the decommissioned USS Little Rock (CG-4), a World War II-era Cleveland-class light cruiser that was converted to a guided-missile destroyer.

Little Rock is the tenth littoral combat ship to enter the fleet and the fifth of the Freedom-class LCS variant, according to the service.

Both Independence-class builders Austal USA and Freedom’s Lockheed Martin are working on 13 more ships in various stages of production, and three in preproduction. Contracts for 29 littoral combat ships have been expected, and three more could be purchased, according to analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

The littoral combat ship is a modular, reconfigurable ship with three types of mission packages. Ships such as Little Rock can conduct surface warfare, mine countermeasures, and anti-submarine warfare operations.

Footage of Little Rock on Friday showed a ship covered in snow, pier side in an ice-covered Lake Erie. The Buffalo- area received between 2 and 4 inches of snow on Friday.

But then winter snow in Buffalo is nothing new. Last Sunday, the Buffalo Bills hosted the Indianapolis Colts in nearby Orchard Park, in a game played in near white-out conditions. According to the Buffalo Bills, 8 inches of snow accumulated in the stadium during the game between noon and 4 p.m.

The Accuweather forecast for Buffalo on Saturday called for cloudy skies, a high temperature of 27 degrees, and snow showers.

  • D. Jones

    Littoral Combat Sled.

    Aluminum ships in winter are COLD (thanks to high thermal conductivity of aluminum). Be interesting to hear if that was the case in Buffalo.

    • MarlineSpikeMate

      Steel hull

      • kye154

        The old wooden sailing ships are better, as far as thermal insulation, not to mention, most likely just as survivable in a shoot-out as the LCSs are. Perhaps that would be a good matchup? USS Constitution vs. an LCS in combat? The USS Constitution had 30 24-pounder (152mm) long guns against the single LCS 57mm. A duel within the “littoral” range of 3 miles, I would give the odds in favor of the USS Constitution of winning.

        • MarlineSpikeMate

          Hmm. If we consider fire power as a function of mass down range over a specific time period, then the 57mm with 220rpm can deliver 2x the explosives down range over a minute than a 5in on a DDG. Still no contest against the USS Constitution. With the speed and maneuverability, I might take my chances on the LCS and just sit off her bow or stern.

          Furthermore, with Longbow and 30mm for close range and a DDG with nothing to offer (2 x 25mm?), why would I not want to be on the LCS?

          I can then send two 11m RHIBS with over sized boarding parties as apposed to a DDG’s two 6m RHIBS.. four times the DDGs boarding party size. Faced with swash buckling pirates, I would go with the bigger boats.

          • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

            Indeed, that’s why the RHIB is a key part of the LCS ASuW module, without the RHIB they couldn’t board and take the Chinese destroyer, with they swords and knives LOLOLOL

          • MarlineSpikeMate

            MIO = LCS FTW

          • Duane

            LOLOL – no, they don’t board it – they disable it with a Harpoon, NSM, or LRASM.

          • MarlineSpikeMate

            Someone doesn’t know what MIO is… or why the 11m are there.. not surprising.

        • Duane

          Sorry, the effective range of the Mk 110 57mm is 9 nm – far far far beyond the range of any naval gun of the early 19th century. A dozen rounds of the proximity fused blast frag munitions from the 57mm would quickly clear the decks and rigging of all living sailors on a sailing ship, far beyond the range of the 24 pounders, ending the battle.

          It’s a silly argument to mount anyway – 21st century warships don’t do battle with 19th century warships.

      • D. Jones

        1000 tons of Aluminum, 2000 tons of steel. Since Aluminum is 1/3 the density of steel, that means more aluminum than steel by volume. Water is a moderator with heat gain or loss, always above 32F. The superstructure will get hotter or colder than an equivalent steel ship. Ever been in an aluminum canoe in the hot or cold? Will be interesting to hear anecdotal reports of the LCS outside balmy Caribbean, San Diego and South China Sea assignments.

        • MarlineSpikeMate

          Yeah.. not a new design concept. They have been forward deployed to asia for several years now, and rumor on the street is its very hot over there.. Good thing for modern HVAC systems.

        • Duane

          Ticos had aluminum superstructures decades ago. It’s not a new design concept. It reduces weight of the superstructure, produces a more stable hull in seas.

          Staying warm is not an issue inside the ship.

  • PolicyWonk

    So – do they have to bring the legal waiver required for each of these so-called “littoral combat ships” to the commissioning before proceedings begin, or did the program office manage to get blanket waivers for each class to save time?

    Neither of the “littoral combat ship” classes are built to naval survivability standards, and therefore by federal law cannot be commissioned into the USN without a waiver. Note that even a non-combatant such as the common fleet oiler is built to the USN’s Level 2 survivability standard.

    And its a shame that this useless waste of taxpayer money named “Little Rock” is being commissioned next to a REAL WARSHIP of the same name – it defiles the name of the predecessor and those gallant sailors that manned her.

    • MarlineSpikeMate

      I find it unfortunate how ABS classed merchant ships survived much butter in collisions than USN standard DDGs..

    • RobM1981

      I agree with you, and I am up-voting you, but I have to admit that I feel bad raining on the sailor’s parade. You can’t blame them for this thing.

      • PolicyWonk

        The sailors that are ordered to man these “littoral combat ships” are patriots that joined the armed forces to serve this nation – and these floating corporate welfare programs are their problem – but not their fault.

        The blame for this rests solely on the unconscionable/irresponsible actions of the denizens of the LCS program office (and the USN for supporting it). When determining the requirements for these boats they didn’t even take input from NECC, the USN’s own littoral combat specialists. Even worse, they seemingly ignored every hard-earned lesson of littoral combat.

        And what does it say about our navy to be building these “littoral combat ships” that are larger than a WW2 Fletcher-class destroyer, yet in a surface encounter between the two the Fletcher would trounce the LCS of today (God help us)?

        Hint: What that says wouldn’t be printable on these pages.

        The sailors of these horrifyingly expensive merchant-grade utility boats are all too aware that other navy’s ships in the same size range (let alone half the size – or even a lot less) are vastly better armed and protected. Vastly.

        Maybe its just mean and nasty of me to place a high value on the lives of our sailors, and believe they should manning a ship that has a chance of prevailing (let alone surviving) if the shooting ever starts.

        • Duane

          You could not possibly be more wrong in every single thing you write.

          The officers and sailors of these warships are extremely proud of their vessels and what they do and what they will do. They are not afraid to man these ships.

          And there would be no contest between an LCS and any World War Two destroyer in a SuW battle (which is a silly thing to even bring up as you did). The LCS would sense, track, and destroy the old DD with OTH missiles long before the old DD even knew it was in danger. It would be a somewhat more even fight with today’s Russian and Chinese frigates and corvettes armed with their own OTH ASMs, but the LCS will still outrange them with its sensors and its long range, very smart OTH ASMs like NSM and LRASM, and has a superior ant-ASCM defense system than the enemies to boot. And unlike the enemies, the LCS is part of a large interconnected network of sensors and warfighters, both in the air and on the ground and on the surface (NIFCCA and CANES), that the enemies do not have today (though they’ll certainly work on trying to fix that). Meaning, the enemy warships will likely never get within OTH range of a US warship before being taken out by LRASMs from up to hundreds of miles away .. perhaps fired from an LCS, a DDG, a F-35, a Super Hornet, or from a B1-B.

          • Frigate sailor

            Apparently Fleet Admiral Duene hasn’t been paying attention to all of the South China sea war games where all the LCS get sunk, but that’s ok, because he’s in his ‘safe place’ sipping on his latte

          • Duane

            State your data source – there are no such games or results.

          • PolicyWonk

            He does seem to be remarkably willing to risk the lives of US sailors in a ship that couldn’t survive a determined attack with a can opener.

            Look at any contemporary naval ships of the same (or even half) the tonnage, that couldn’t sink LCS without fear of retaliation. Our own sailors are well aware that the ships they’ve been assigned to can only be described as toothless and defenseless when compared to other navy’s ships.

            Grand Admiral of the Fleet Duane has ignored them, too.

          • OS1 retired

            And I suppose that going into battle Dueinee would rather be on an LCS than a Burke destroyer or a Tico-that’s just show us how out of touch he really is.

          • Duane

            In the littorals, facing littoral threats including small boat and aircraft swarms, yes, the LCS is far better defended than the big slow deep draft ships without effective littoral armaments.

            In providing area air defenses to carrier strike groups or land facilities, of course the Ticos and Arleigh Burkes are the better force.

            Just as one would not want to rely on a Tico or AB to launch strike fighter air strikes – you use a CVN or a LHA to do that.

            Or if you wanted to launch a stealthy missile land attack barrage, use a SSGN or a Virginia with a VPM, or a Zumwalt, and not an easy to spot, track and target Tico or AB.

            Each ship in the Navy fleets has a job to do that it is better at than any other ship in the Navy.

          • OS1 retired

            Of course the poor LCS will always be ‘in’ it’s littoral safe place hidden from those bad bad Chinese missile boats. But when it eventually has the courage to venture out into blue water, it can quickly scoot back into the littorals if it sees a bad bad Chinese Frigate come it’s way. After all, the LCS cannot be touched in it’s littoral safe place-that wouldn’t be fair.

        • Old Frigate Sailor

          Sadly, in some future scenario, the LCS are going to be treated like Frigates used to be, picket duty and torpedo sponges, but without any of the qualities or capabilties Frigates have i.e. they are expendables. Then we’ll all be “shocked” at how fast they sink and the Dueine’s of the world will say “But, but, but, they were mighty, I don’t understand…”

          • Lazarus

            LCS will not be sunk any faster than would the old FFG 7’s.

          • PolicyWonk

            You don’t know that. And the Navy’s IG says you’re wrong.

          • Lazarus

            The IG? They are not experts on survivability. If you are suggesting the simple survivability levels (I, II, and III,) you should know that they primarily reflect a ship’s active and passive defense capabilities (SAM’s, CWIS, chaff, decoys) and not the ship’s physical construction. The obsolescence and removal of the FFG’s MK92 FCS and MK13 launched weapons effectively reduced the Perry’s survivability level to that of the LCS.

          • PolicyWonk

            The USN’s IG are FAR more expert than YOU are – and I’d take their word for it before I’d take yours.

          • Lazarus

            I do not think you understand the functions of the Navy Inspector General’s office. They do not assess warship survivability in anything beyond simplistic terms.

        • Al L.

          “yet in a surface encounter between the two the Fletcher would trounce the LCS of today (God help us)?”

          I’m betting in a surface encounter LCS-4 would at least send a Fletcher limping back home before the Fletcher even knew Coronado was out there.

          A Fletcher has nothing to counter being targeted by a radar equipped MQ-8b or a MH-60 at 10 miles, nothing to counter a Harpoon.

          The Coronado wouldn’t even need the helos. Radar horizon LCS to Fletcher is about 21 miles, well outside Fletchers weapons. Coronado could mosey up to and well past the horizon, get a good solid fix and hit the Fletcher with 4 harpoons. Game over.

          • Lazarus

            These ship on ship fantasy fights are foolish at best. It takes a lot of cumulative gun damage to sink even a 2000 to 3500 tin ship. One cruise missile would be the end of a Fletcher class ship, as numerous sinkex’s of such ships in the 1970’s and 1980’s proved.

          • PolicyWonk

            As is typical, you really missed the point. The LCS being built to allow the crew to abandon ship if hit isn’t anything to brag about. Nor is LCS going to survive a hit from a cruise missile – rendering your point kinda sad.

            The Fletchers were at least designed to take a hit and keep fighting – and they did exactly that. Fletchers were designed to fight – and LCS was not, according to the former CNO. A gunfight between the two would turn LCS into a scrap heap.

          • Lazarus

            Fletchers were designed to survive a number of small and medium projectile hits; not modern torpedoes or cruise missiles. A number of Fletcher class DD’s were sunk in Harpoon and Tomahawk missile tests in the 1970’s and 1980’s. One hit was enough.

          • PolicyWonk

            With no one aboard, no one on watch, no one shooting back, no defenses, and no damage control gangs.

            Excellent test, and brutally fair assessment for which you should be commended.

            Not.

          • Lazarus

            The Fletchers in question almost always broke in half and sank after one hit. Those that did not were mission kills.Agree it was easier to restore 1940’s era primitive combat systems, but those weapons and sensors are of little utility in the present.

          • Al L.

            You get no argument from me. But yet such fantasys seem to generate the psychology that rejects LCS outright as useless . As though the only measure of a system is how it would do in a boxing ring with a matched opponent. Simple examples of how this is false are a simple way to push such thinking back.

          • PolicyWonk

            LCS isn’t useless. After all, every ship can be a minesweeper at least once. LCS is not built for combat and lacks the room for growth to significantly add armament or protection (the weight restrictions are part of the reason why the mission packages aren’t ready).

            But what LCS is, is heinously expensive given the lousy value – this was the opinion of our allies that evaluated LCS and turned it down saying it was far too expensive given the poor ROI.

            Out of curiosity, what is it that you consider to be LCS’s opponent? A Skjold-class missile boat would wipe it from the face of the earth before the LCS even know it was there. And be aware, that LCS sailors and officers are acutely aware that other navies ships of the same relative tonnage (let alone half the tonnage) are far more heavily armed and protected.

          • Lazarus

            LCS was turned down by our allies because it did not meet their requirements or fit in their force structure. These are different for our allies whose force structure and capabilities are much less than that of the USN.

          • PolicyWonk

            Sure – you’re probably right.

            After all, other navies expect to get some value for their money, and LCS certainly doesn’t do that. And since these ships aren’t built to fight, and lack the room for growth to do so (or otherwise protect themselves), they aren’t likely to fit into ANYONES force structure (that is – assuming they have functioning grey matter).

            It makes sense for a NAVY with limited resources to strongly desire ships that can FIGHT. Our navy is hurting for resources with commitments all over the world, and LCS does little to fix that problem, especially since it has to be in the proximity of a Burke to hide behind if/when it needs protection. What other navy would want a ship that imposes this kind of wasteful burden?

            Hence – the Saudi variant designed loosely around the Freedom class sea frame is an entirely new ship, with far more punch and protection – at a better price point. So they turned down the Freedoms and Independences for the right reasons.

            Which brings up the question: What is it that makes the USN the only smart ones?

          • SamIam

            Just send the LCS out on picket duty, it’ll let the fleet know where the subs are right away-just look for a black plume of smoke on the horizon where the LCS was

          • Lazarus

            Agree. It’s thinking more appropriate to video games rather than actual naval conflict.

          • PolicyWonk

            None of the LCS were envisioned to be equipped with heavy weapons, as was noted by former CNO Greenert. This explains the weight restrictions for mission packages, etc., and the lack of growth that was built-in to these boats at the outset. The USN finally (begrudgingly) decided that maybe some obsolete Harpoons would be acceptable. Given their elderly status, they’ve since also tested the NSM, which is a better option.

            The main point was referring to the armament that have today, to demonstrate the basic point that these ships are nothing more than a deception. You can arm these things all you want, but they’ll still be junk. It’s an inherently bad idea to build a ship to commercial standards (at massive cost) and then pretend they’re built for battle, when its simply not the case.

            If you’re a terrorist group where everyone is signed up to be a martyr, that might be one thing. But I’d like to believe we have better respect for the lives of those who serve (naive as that may be).

    • Lazarus

      Yes, we get it; you don’t like LCS. You have yet to suggest any affordable alternative.

      • OS1 retired

        The National Security Cutter is twice the ship at half the cost, and would make an outstanding Frigate

        • Duane

          No – you have it exactly backwards. The NSC is NOT a warship, first of all, and it is half the capability at 50% MORE cost than an LCS.

          • Duane-aka Sir Lockmart

            Admiral BAR NONE has fired another broadside, too bad all of his balls fell short 😛

          • Ex Navy warrior

            I get it, just add a few more 50 cal machine guns the to NSC then it’ll be equal to the LCS firepower LOL

          • Duane

            No – it would take a major makeover of the NSC, adding at least 100+ million to its already expensive (near $700M) price per hull to be equally equipped for SuW and ASW. Weapons, fire control systems, volumetric and surface radar sensors, ECM, VD sonar, and physical countermeasures for both ASCMs and torpedoes. The NSC is not a warship. The LCS is a warship.

        • Lazarus

          Maybe a 1980’s frigate but that is not what the USN needs in the present.

      • PolicyWonk

        Laz,

        We’ve been through this. We certainly cannot afford what is deceitfully called an SSC, but was never designed for warfare, and cannot defend itself against a peer naval opponent, and its not even fast enough to run away. As former CNO Adm. Jonathan admitted, LCS was “never intended to venture into the littorals to engage in combat”.

        Why should the taxpayers be paying for a class of ships, the capabilities of which the USN deliberately LIED about to get funded? They lied about these ships mission (“littoral combat”), they lied about its capabilities, they lied about how they would be manned, they lied about the mission packages, they lied about the construction, and lied about the cost.

        Are you seriously going to argue that the criminals running the LCS program office should be rewarded? ALL of the denizens of the LCS program office should be court-martialed and drummed out of the service.

        Bottom line: If the USN has to get a legal waiver to have them commissioned into the navy because they aren’t built to any of the USN’s own survivability standards (Level 1, 2, or 3), then we can’t afford them because they cannot perform the missions commanders are likely to assign them (thats according to the USN’s own Inspector General) without sinking.

        We have the immediate option in the Legend Class NSC, which is only slightly more expensive, is a vastly better ship, and has a hot production line. And failing that, we could buy the heavily modified Freedom variant the Saudi’s are buying – that at least has a chance of defending itself and doing damage to a potential adversary.

        • Lazarus

          The NSC is now at $735m (latest unit,) and an average cost of $695m. That is before any frigate upgrades. NSC is just too expensive to be bought in the required numbers.

          • PolicyWonk

            NSC isn’t expensive when compared to buying something as utterly useless as a ship that cannot defend itself, or be upgraded to reasonably accommodate either more firepower or protection. How does LCS represent value if it has to hide behind a Burke, as if it were a child hiding behind his mothers dress, or otherwise be upgraded?

            The NSC therefore represents a much better investment. Economies of scale can be found if you’re buying sufficient numbers, just like with these deceitfully designated “littoral combat ship” variants.

    • magic3400

      I think the last US Navy ship was sunk by the enemy was in late 1945…I wouldn’t worry about the wavier..

      Waivers for incompetent senior surface warfare officers is another story, they’re killing more crew than the enemy.

      • PolicyWonk

        Nor have we been in a serious fight with a peer navy for decades.

        But I don’t view this as an excuse to build ships that aren’t tough enough to take a punch. It is pointless to build a navy that cannot fight and prevail, or survive if hit. We owe this to the crews – who should have a fighting chance to prevail and survive in battle.

        • magic3400

          I get your point, but the US Navy can’t be defended from current hypersonic cruise missiles (Zircon), ASBMs (DF-21D, DF-26) OR lasers and railguns. Until we come up with a counter to the current threats, every single ship in the US Navy is merely a target.

          • PolicyWonk

            While true, there is a lot of promise with direct energy weapons.

            But while our ships are and remain targets, so are those of our potential adversaries. And fortunately, ships will remain useful unless of course a real shootin’ war starts – then it could become a different discussion.

            And according to a bubblehead pal of mine, they consider everything that floats to be a target.

          • magic3400

            I guest my point is that 97% of what the Navy does can be defended, countered and/or destroyed by our current ships and the last 3% will probably result in DEFCON 1 – and we know what that means…those ships won’t really mean much.

            A lot of my friends think I’m like your pal, I can relate LOL 🙂

  • Duane

    Welcome to the fleet!

    • SamIam

      …and may you never have to sail in harm’s way and get blown to bits, but when you do get blown to bits you can go knowing full well that you served on the best aluminum coffin money could buy.”

  • Brian Wroblewski

    I was there. It was the historic event of a lifetime. Fantastic. Everyone did a great job. Go Navy! Let’s go Buffalo!

  • kye154

    If I had my choice, I would prefer to be on the Little Rock CG-4, because, at least it has 6 inches of armor for some protection, whereas the Little Rock LCS-9 has none. Also, the CG-4 had 5″ and 6″ guns, not pee-shooters like the 57mm found on the LCS-9. I saw service with the Little Rock in the Vietnam war. Sure, it was nothing like the heavy cruiser Newport News or the Battleship New Jersey, but at least they all had armor, and all could have been modularly fitted like the LCSs, if the navy was wiser and had done so. It would have saved the navy a bundle of money too.

    • Stephen

      One minor note; she was converted to a CLG, not a Destroyer. Talos missile system dominated the stern.

    • Duane

      The belt armor on a Cleveland class cruiser of WW Two is useless against ASCMs of today as well as aircraft in WW Two – when even the heaviest armored BBs could not survive a concentrated bombing and torpedo attack from carrier aircraft of the day. Exhibit A – the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 which saw our entire surface fleet sunk or damaged in a single attack lasting less then 90 minutes. The primary defense of the Cleveland class cruisers was its anti-aircraft systems, foremost of which was the 40mm Bofors AA mounts that were the predecessor to what you call a “peashooter” – the Bofors/BAE Mk 110 57mm gun. Which is not a gun for sinking warships. Nobody uses guns anymore for sinking surface warships, that went out many decades ago.

      Ships today are not threatened by big guns from other ships, which no longer exist. Ships today are threatened by ASCMs, and are protected by anti-ASCM systems and ECM and physical countermeasures.

      • NavySubNuke

        “the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 which saw our entire surface fleet sunk or damaged”
        Really Duane? The ENTIRE surface fleet?
        I think the crews of all of our ships assigned to the Atlantic fleet, the carriers Lexington, Saratoga, and Enterprise and their assigned task forces, as well as a number of the ships actually moored AT Pearl Harbor who were left undamaged would beg to differ.
        I realize you pride yourself on your willful ignorance but this is impressive even by your standards.

        • Duane

          Yes, the entire Pacific surface fleet that was in Pearl Harbor that was attacked was sunk or damaged in that attack. Obviously the Atlantic fleet was not damaged, nor the Asiatic fleet, in that attack. But every surface ship present there that day was badly damaged or sunk.

          As always, you totally zinged on the point .. that every single surface ship that was subject to the attack by carrier aircraft was either badly damaged or destroyed, despite their heavy belt and deck armor … with not a single enemy naval gun within 200 miles.

          Or are you going to mount another one of your tiresome nitpicking campaigns of numerous comments that fail, as always to account for the context and meaning of the comment? And you cannot even get basic RELEVANT facts straight, such as you insisting the other day that the SM-6 is used to attack incoming ASCMs, rather than the obvious schoice of ESSMs or SM-2s. Yet you went on and on and on like the little energizer bunny claiming that what I wrote was somehow wrong despite the fact that you were entirely wrong from get go

          Yup, thought so, why you think anyone is interested in comments that are entirely predictable, pedantic, and tiresome is a wonder. Such comments don’t contribute to thoughtful, reasoned discussion, but are intended only to disrupt and annoy.

          • NavySubNuke

            “the entire Pacific surface fleet that was in Pearl Harbor that was attacked was sunk or damaged in that attack”
            Nice job trying to move the goal posts – yet again – when you have been proven wrong.
            Except your answer is – yet again – wrong. There were a hosts of destroyers in the harbor that day who weren’t damaged and neither were several light cruisers including the DETROIT and PHOENIX.
            “such as you insisting the other day that the SM-6 is used to attack incoming ASCMs, rather than the obvious schoice of ESSMs or SM-2s.”
            LOL. Nice job trying to change history there Duane boy but that actual context of the conversation was me pointing your obviously false statement that the SEARAM was the BEST anti-ASCM system out there by simply asking if we polled 100 SWOs on what they would rather defend their ship with Aegis/SM-6 or SEARAM? You of course dodged the question since your fragile ego will almost never allow you to admit when you are wrong. But you are correct I could have just as easily used the SM-2 or the ESSM to show that your nonsense about the SEARAM was yet another example of your ignorance.
            Nice try though — keep it up and eventually you will find an example of something I said incorrectly.

          • Duane

            This is not a game, there are no goal posts. Adults try to have a conversation, but then the snotty little know-it-all kid comes in and creates arguments for no other purpose than to be a jerk. And all the adults roll their eyes and yell at him to leave the room and hang with the little kids.

          • NavySubNuke

            ** Pats Duane on the head ** No worries Duane, as I’ve said numerous times I know that you pride yourself on your willful ignorance and that your fragile ego will almost never allow you to admit you are wrong even when you obviously are.
            I also realize that you lack any sort of personal integrity or honor which is why you like to do things like question my service and my dolphins when I point out that you are once again incorrect and you refuse to admit it despite lying and saying that you always admit when you are wrong.
            Feel free to dismiss me all you like old man – just as you dismissed your own integrity and self respect so long ago.

          • Duane

            You dismiss yourself with your pedantic annoying desire to start and maintain meaningless, irrelevant arguments over nothing.

            You are the Seinfeld of the internet threads – all except for the part about being entertaining.

          • NavySubNuke

            **yawn** me thinks he doth protest too much.

          • Old Salt

            Hey NavyNuc, “Facts” are only those things that Dueene’s approves of, if you bring real facts to him, he dismisses you as “old” and “nitpicking,” and “tiresome” and “snotty” and “know-it-all”

          • NavySubNuke

            I know – it really is entertaining to watch. Especially since he specifically claims he always admits when he is wrong.
            When you realize he has no personal integrity it makes his support of the LCS a lot easier to understand.

          • PolicyWonk

            Yo NSN,

            All Grand Admiral of the Fleet Duane does is spew BRAVO SIERRA from the USN’s own LCS fan-boy site.

            He ignores years of DOT&E reporting and audits (past to present), the USN’s own Inspector General, years of OMB audits, and every defense analyst worth his salt on the topic – all of whom have repeatedly scorched both LCS variants. Nor does it count our allies, who despite their initial interest, walked away saying (correctly) that LCS was way too expensive given the lousy ROI.

            The question then becomes: “what makes the USA the only smart ones?”

            The only ones claiming how wonderful these so-called LCS’s are, are denizens of the liars in the LCS program office, and the recipients of this blatant corporate welfare program (Austal and LockMart), and it isn’t like they don’t have a vested interest.

          • Duane-aka Sir Lockmart

            Who needs ‘inspectors’ and ‘experts’ and ‘tests’ and such? Those are all overrated and so 1995. We aren’t trying to create a warship you know, this is all about keeping the bottom line of Lockmart nice and fat-sailors are expendable.

          • muzzleloader

            You know Duane well.

          • muzzleloader

            There were 8 cruisers at Pearl that morning, 2 heavy and 6 light. 2 light cruisers were torpedoed and sunk upright at anchor. There were 29 destroyers there too. 2 of them, the Cassin and the Downes were bombed and wrecked in dry dock. There were also 8 oilers and ammunition ships there, not to mention 4 submarines.
            There were 53 surface combatants anchored at Pearl Harbor that morning, meaning 53 ships were behind the submarine nets. Of the 53, 11 were sunk/wrecked.
            Duannes statement that every ship attacked that morning was “sunk”, is quite overblown.

        • PolicyWonk

          And lets not forget our submarines: the sub base at Pearl Harbor was untouched, and our subs were sent out on their first war patrol almost immediately after the attack.

      • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

        It’s wonderful the Japanese were able to sink the USS Enterprise too, right Duane? If they hadn’t the war would’ve turned out differently

    • Sir Bateman

      You sure you were on the Little Rock? She spent her entire post conversion career on the East Coast or in the Med as the flagship of the 6th Feet.

      • kye154

        I have pictures of her and her sister ship, the USS Springfield, sitting off of Danang. I was onboard the USS Newport News at the time. The Newport News was an East coast ship too. We usually operated close together on some of the operations. The Little Rock’s conversion was in 1960. I saw her in the 1968-1969 time frame. Back then she was CLG-4. The Navy changed her designation to CG4 in the mid-70’s. That is principally because many people got her mixed up with the “DLGs” then, which were guided missile destroyers. (problems with Alphabet soup acronyms, you know).

        • Sir Bateman

          You sure you don’t have the the Little Rock and Springfield confused with the Oklahoma City and Providence? The Okie Boat and Providence were both worked pretty hard in Vietnam with multiple WESTPAC deployments.

          That’s awesome that you served on the Newport News, she really was some ship. Weren’t each one of her 8 inch rifles capable of putting out something like 10 or 12 rounds a minute?

  • DaSaint

    Who said they weren’t ice capable? LOL!

    Will they have to call a USCG Buoy Tender to break the ice for it?

  • Duane-aka Sir Lockmart

    At the commisioning cermony, Fleet Admiral Duine said “Here, before us, is the most powerful warfight ship ever concieved by man. Here we have capabilities that are unsurpassed by any ship, any battleship, any cruiser, any destroyer, or any aircraft carrier-BAR NONE. It out fight and out run any potential threat today and 20 years into the future, it can find and sink any sub, it can shot down any steath aircraft and it’s so fast it can out run a missile, and when it needs to it can go hide in the littorals and become invisible. I’d like to thank my sponsor and future employer Lockhead Martin for this great opportunity to commission another one of their great products…”

    • RobM1981

      You know, for a brief second there…

      LOL

    • Rick Slater

      He was kidding, right??? 🙂

      • Reinhard Gitzel

        I was looking at the calendar, and it’s a long way to go till April Fools day.

    • PolicyWonk

      LOL – Awesome!

      Fleet Admiral Duane’s hyperbolic BRAVO SIERRA has indeed become the stuff of legend!

    • Duane

      Very proud of your own wit, I presume. As Clint Eastwood put it several decades ago, “a legend in your own mind”.

      But the facts are still the facts.

  • Rick Slater

    The new ship has a “glass jaw”! And, I would expect a USNI writer to know the difference between a guided missile “destroyer” and a cruiser. Mistakes like that you expect from the mainstream press, but the USNI??

  • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

    I didn’t vote for the LCS, “NOT MY WARSHIP” I call for it’s impeachment since it’s obviously ‘deranged’ and ‘crazy’ thinking that it can go and fight the Chinese navy. 😛

  • Adrian Ah

    By now, 17 years after it’s beginning, it’s obvious the ideology which lead to the LCS, F-35 and Ford class aircraft carrier being built without established research first into the features they wanted, has failed.

    For the LCS, even though the first LCS came out in 2007, it still only has some large machine guns and nothing else.(57mm guns are just machine guns imho).

    In a logical world, they would stop building LCS, and build more specialised ships- proper minehunters, long range OPVs with shallow draft, frigates which specialise in anti sub warfare.

    The USN would also swallow it’s pride and licence build the Oto Melara 5 inch gun- it’s specialised rounds go 100+km.

    Peace time is a real enemy for the military. Dumb people with dumb ideas rise into positions of influence.
    Look at Israel. Always on a war footing, has fantastic military hardware, troops and tactics. Turns US hardware into better products all the time.

  • Duane-aka Sir Lockmart

    The “lord’s” prayer:
    Our Lockheed, which art in California,
    Hallowed be thy corporation.
    Thy profits come.
    Thy will be done in the Navy,
    As it is in the DoD.
    Give us this day our daily inflated sales margins.
    And forgive us our little crappy ships,
    As we forgive them that use logic against us.
    And lead us not into real competition,
    But deliver us from facts and reason.
    For thine is the monoploy,
    The profits, and the greed,
    For ever and ever.
    Amen.

    • Tin-can sailor

      Now dueneie, go to your corner and say twenty Hail Lockheed’s 😛

  • John Burtis

    Another dog with fleas joins a pound full of LCS castoffs. Fleet Admiral? I’m surprised that the far left Obama/Mabus duumvirate didn’t create any five star admirals. Stellar company men adhering to and pushing their rubbish deserved that rank.

  • Ed L

    Anyone notice the USS Little Rock (CL-92/CLG-4/CG-4) in the background? She carried the Talos missile system A system that during the vietnam war was credited of downing a MiG at a range of approximately 90 Miles. The CG-4 was retired in 1976 after only 20 years, (many say it was due to the Top Heavy due to the Talos system. I was actually got to go aboard her once prior to her being decommision