Home » Budget Industry » Littoral Combat Ship Sioux City Set to Commission on Saturday at the Naval Academy


Littoral Combat Ship Sioux City Set to Commission on Saturday at the Naval Academy

Future USS Sioux City (LCS-11) at the U.S. Naval Academy before the ship’s commissioning ceremony. US Naval Academy photo.

The future USS Sioux City (LCS -11) is moored at U.S. Naval Academy for a commissioning scheduled for Saturday, the first such ceremony held for a warship on the Severn River.

U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) is scheduled to deliver the commissioning ceremony’s principal address. Mary Winnefeld, the wife of former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. James “Sandy” Winnefeld (ret.), is the ship’s sponsor.

For shipbuilder Lockheed Martin, the commissioning provides a ready example of how production line improvements at the Fincantieri Marinette Marine facility in Marinette, Wisc., are paying off.

“LCS-11 was the first ship to get through the modernized yard,” Joe DePietro, Lockheed Martin’s vice president of Small Combatants and Ship Systems said during a media briefing this week. “We laid two keels this year, and delivered two ships, and will launch two ships this year, so we really hit our stride.”

Sioux City is the 13th littoral combat ship to enter the fleet and is the sixth Freedom-class variant. In August, Lockheed Martin also delivered the 14th LCS, the future USS Wichita (LCS-13). Both ships are expected to be homeported in Jacksonville, Fla.

One of the hallmarks of the LCS program is the relatively small crew size. Sioux City will start with a crew of about 70 officers and enlisted personnel, but the ship has berthing for up to 98 sailors, DePietro said. The purpose of adding crew accommodations was to allow Navy personnel to take care of more maintenance while underway.

The ship sends more than 80,000 signals to about 10,000 sensors, all with the goal of helping the smaller crews better manage the parts or components requiring replacement, DePietro said.

“Let’s not just do maintenance for the sake of maintenance,” DePeitro said. “Let’s understand the condition of the system to drive us to do that maintenance.”

Other examples of automation include being able to control the ship’s speed from a single console, instead of having to call to engineering to adjust speed. The LCS combat systems combine some functions to accommodate combat control teams of 5 to 8 sailors. On a destroyer or cruiser, DePietro said teams of 20 or more sailors typically run the combat systems. Cutting crew sizes, he explained, is one of the critical factors to cutting the cost of operating the LCS program.

“At the end of the day, the LCS is still getting delivered and delivered at a cost that’s under the Congressionally mandated cost cap that was set,” DePietro said.

  • Duane

    Welcome to the fleet, USS Sioux City!

    • Chesapeakeguy

      “ISS” Duane? What, is it Iranian or something? LOL. Hit that edit button there fella!

      • IssacBabel

        ISS, Indigenous Sioux Ship, ship is tribal property apparently.

        • David Oldham

          they can have it

      • muzzleloader

        International Space Station!

      • Duane

        Fat fingering on the smart phone … now corrected, thank you.

        • Chesapeakeguy

          YW..

  • Ed L

    Where’s the 5 inch gun?

    • Ser Arthur Dayne

      Hey now, Two and a quarter inch guns have the advantage of being so small, the enemy won’t be able to see the bullets ! Sneaky sneaky!

      • Duane

        You are trying to sound funny – you aren’t, of course – while engaging in nothing more than snark.

        The small craft swarms and aircraft that come under fire from an LCS will not be laughing or joking around.

        • Ed L

          as long as the swarms of small craft stay in the sight radius of the 57mm. They need another one mounted on the stern. Blind spots will kill you.

          • Lazarus

            That’s what the surface warfare module 30mm guns and soon Longbow Hellfire are for.

    • Duane

      A naval 5 inch gun is a very poor weapon for littoral combat. Way too slow firing rate (16 RPM vs. 220 RPM for the 57 mm gun), too small a ready magazine (about 1/3 that of the 57mm), and no, I repeat no multi-mode precision guided rounds capable of hitting a moving target … there is virtually no such thing as a non-moving target in combat on the littoral seas .. the targets all move, and most of them move very fast and are highly maneuverable.

      The 5 in naval gun could only hit a small surface craft with a very lucky shot. In the face of a swarm of such small, fast, rapidly maneuvering surface craft many of which are now armed with anti-ship cruise missiles, a DDG-51 or a CG would be a sitting duck and an easy kill against such a threat. Not the LCS, though.

      The 57 mm gun easily outguns any DDG 51 or CG or any other frigate not equipped with the 57 mm gun in the littoral combat environment.

      BTW, the 57mm gun is the main gun for our Coast Guard National Security Cutters, and the main gun for the small warships of 19 other navies of the world.

      • Ed L

        I perfer gattling guns and have shot them in 5.56, 7.62mm and 20mm caliber.

      • Michael Hoskins, Privileged

        I have a question. First, let’s seperate the gun from the projectile. While the 57mm gun puts out lots of rounds, if I understand your point, it is the terminal guidance in the projectile that does the work. Is it so hard to take the guidance/fuse package from the little guy and install it in the bigger bullet.

        That overcomes part of the rate of fire issue by engaging at greater range with a bigger bang.

        What am I missing?

        • Rocco

          Velocity!! Good example is a 357 Magnum!! Can use multiple charged rounds or even shot 38 special rounds. Depending on your target & penetrating needs. Of course factoring range of target & wind. A 57 gun would have to be in range to be effective against a ship even with a slower fired 5″ gun . It would take a very Galant skipper to take on a large ship. But in WW 2 in the Battle of Leyte gulf this was done many times.

      • Bubblehead

        Duane, quit making stuff up. Guided rounds have been around for several years in 5 inch guns and 76mm. NATO ships have been using them for several years with great effect. It is far easier to put guided rounds in higher caliber ammo than small pea shooters like the 57mm. The 5″ volcano round has a range approaching 90km. 76mm rounds around 50km. That is a game changing capability. A capability NATO ships have been using. The 57mm volcano pea shooter has NEVER been tested.

        • Rocco

          Agreed

      • Rocco

        The National security cutter doesn’t go to battle with other ships or land targets!!! So it’s irrelevant to even mention that!!

    • Lazarus

      The one that so frequently jams?

    • Bubblehead

      Exactly! The 57mm is a joke. Even USN own words they were greatly disappointed in the 57mm gun so much so they dropped it from the Zums.

    • Rocco

      It’s too big for a ship this size!! However a 76mm is better than a 57!!

  • Ser Arthur Dayne

    All our enemies, both foreign and domestic, are doomed!

    I’m sure the Admiral Grigorovich-class frigates are shaking in their steel hulls. A 100mm”, 8 VLS for land-attack & anti-ship cruise missiles, 24 VLS for advanced, medium-range SAMs, 2 AK-630s CIWS, turret-mounted Iglas for point-defense, heavyweight torpedoes and RBU-6000 ASW mortars ….

    vs

    57mm popgun & Rolling Airframe Missiles (which I have a ton of respect for).

    Nyet, comrades.

    • Buisness Orc

      We need a navy we can afford that can accomplish its mission, not a navy that’s too small because people think every ship class needs to be able to 1v1 the Admiral Grigorovich-class.

      Not every ship needs to be a ship of the line or DDG.

      • Ser Arthur Dayne

        I got several comments from you in my email but only one is showing up here, so I will address this one — When you say “accomplish it’s mission” , you sort of condemn the rest of your argument. Nearly all of our “ships of the line” as you said are purpose-built warships that by their very definition are multi-role surface combatants. The LCS is a failure but was designed to be able to conduct just about all areas of naval warfare — just not at the same time. Unfortunately it basically can’t do any of them, at any time. The FFG(X) program has basically stated that it’s very purpose for existence and procurement is to provide a multirole, multi-mission, full-fledged SMALL Surface Combatant… And yes, it doesn’t need to have the QUANTITY of armament, equipment, and accessories as the DDGs — but it DOES need to have the QUALITY of same and specifically the ability to do just about everything the DDGs can do, just not to the same extent or as long/in the same level of volume. Russia as decided it’s better to have many more smaller ships with high levels of their latest technologies. I think they have a very good point. We say we have this “distributed lethality” concept, but we haven’t actually distributed it. And I’m telling you right here and right now, while I do not expect the LCS to ever amount to much, (Maybe one day they’ll actually bolt on those Naval Strike Missile launchers and maybe even put those Longbow Hellfires woohoo, small boats won’t stand a chance!) —- if the FFG(X) is not absolutely superior to the Admiral Gorshkov frigates (the biggest and most capable of Russia’s modern ‘small surface combatants’), let alone the Admiral Grigorovich frigates (the smaller, higher-priority small surface combatant of the Russian Navy) — we’re in big, big trouble. Even their “stealth corvette” class, the Project 20380s or “Steregushchiy-class” are head and shoulders above the LCS by far, while being significantly smaller, extremely more armament and equipment, and much, much, much less expensive ….. With the failure of the LCS program to produce even the most-basic example of a warship, the FFG(X) absolutely HAS to be on par with peer-competition. It may not be a DDG, but it ABSOLUTELY has to be a “ship-of-the-line”.

        • PolicyWonk

          LCS sailors aren’t stupid, and they all are acutely aware that other countries navy ships of similar and even half the tonnage are vastly better armed and protected.

          You are right, in that FFG(X) had better be right. But given the appalling failure of this program, and the penchant of the PEO to double down on bad decisions, the smart money says one of the undeserving LCS providers has the inside track.

          Expect the worst, and be surprised if they make a coherent decision.

          • Duane

            No failures of the program or the ships, dude.

            They are the world’s finest littoral warships, bar none, nobody else has anything remotely close in capability or lethality or surviveability. The US Navy loves’em, every single one.

        • Duane

          Nope – LCS is the very opposite of a failure, it is a humongous success, the world’s most capable littoral warship bar none. It accomplishes its missions in its environment better than any ship afloat, including the DDGs and CGs, which cannot perform the littoral combat mission anywhere remotely as well as the LCS.

          No other small warship on the planet has the lethality or survivability of the LCS either. LCS has the finest gun system – the 57 mm Mk 110 gun with its multi-mode precision guided rounds capable of hitting moving targets (no other naval gun system in the world has that capability), and the finest missile point defense system, SeaRAM, on the planet, and the 24-cell Hellfire launcher, and its two 30 mm Mk 46 mounts. The LCS has the finest medium range anti ship cruise missile in the world, the Naval Strike Missile. The LCS has the finest combat management system in the world, the scaled down AEGIS called “COMBATTS-21” (scaled down only in not supporting a large area long range missile defense system, which of course is not a role of the LCS).

          LCS has the world’s finest ASW system, including the latest generation sonars including towed array, VDS, and equipped with the finest ASW aircraft including MH-60 and MQ-8, and a shallow water laser sub detection system and the latest generation torpedo defense system.

          LCS has the world’s finest and most capable MCM system, with the most cutting edge unmanned systems that provide crew-safe rapid wide area mine hunting for fleet support with the laser based ALMDS on its MH-60, CUSV with towed mine hunting and neutralization, Knifefish, and airborne shallow water minehunting and neutralization system on MQ-8.

          With its shallow draft and high speeds, it is the only warship on the planet capable of engaging large swarms of surface craft through the shallow littorals, which is precisely where small craft attacks on merchant ships and warships emanate from.

          You guys with your constant LCS trolling are purposefully ignoring the LCS’s best in class and best in world capabilities, all because you decided years ago it didn’t fit your 20th century notions of what a ship should look like or act like.

          • Rocco

            OK Duane…… You win !! Your right!! The day these ships has to go into combat & not retreat like in the last ship will you put your money if any..Lol where your mouth is??

          • Bubblehead

            LCS loverboy speaks, so it must be so….

            Just to be clear, guided rounds have been around for a while and NATO ships have been using them for several years. We are late to the game.

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            And I just realized, he must really have some mental issues. I have made it plain that I blocked him over a year ago, and yet he still responds to each and every post I make. I can’t see them, don’t want to even bother reading them, and the Grand Admiral knows this, yet continues. The World Wonders…..

          • Americanboi

            I can’t seem to figure out whether or not you like the LCS. So do you?

            I like it personally, as our own homegrown ship. I think it’s pretty cool and would serve a great purpose.

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            I think they’re an embarrassment to the Navy and our nation’s military. They were built to less rigorous standards than some commercial ships, not remotely close to military warship standards. They’re made from aluminum. They’re extremely easy to damage/destroy with weaponry from the badguys and then they’ll burn and burn extremely hot. They have extremely limited weaponry, sensors, and warfighting equipment. *NONE* of the fancy “Misson Packages” work, some don’t even exist really, and perhaps never will. And they literally might not ever actually be able to do anything useful for the Navy- certainly cannot be used in combat (Literally, several different Navy leaders have admitted that.) I think it’s terrible to put our men and women sailors on a ship that has no chance to damage the enemy and an extremely high damage of preventing the loss of your own life in combat. And it’s been over a decade and they still don’t actually go on deployment.

          • Americanboi

            Okay, true true. Admittedly, I really didn’t do too much research on the ship itself so I’m not here to put up and argument. You seem to have much more knowledge on the subject.

            What would you say we could improve about them?(other than completely getting rid of them)

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            I would immediately “bolt-on” as many offensive and defensive systems as possible. The Freedom-class has a 21-cell launcher for the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), and the Indepedence-class has a SeaRAM, which is an 11-cell launcher for the RAM with a built in radar/electro-optical sensor. Not nearly enough. I would find a way to mount ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile) launchers or add VLS for them. Definitely need more defensive missiles. And I would *immediately* add the “Over-The-Horizon-Missiles” they have been talking about for years. Early this year they settled on the Norwegian-made “Naval Strike Missiles” — but it’s taking years before they actually are going to show up. The LCSs need offensive and defensive weaponry now- Who knows when the next war will break out? Who knows when Iran starts in the Gulf, or the Yemeni rebels who shot at our DDGs and they had to fire SM-2s and ESSMs? Or China decides to defend one of the islands they claim by blowing an LCS out of the water. Or the day Russia decides to take back Eastern Europe and unfortunately there’s an LCS in the Black Sea or Baltic Sea and gets lit up by Russian small ships *much* more equipped. Also, the LCSs don’t have a ton of EW (Electronic Warfare) and sensor equipment … If every LCS doesn’t have an MH-60 and FireScout on it, it’s basically blind and dumb on the seas. — and I have said this to many people on here many times before — I don’t like the fact we have them, BUT WE HAVE THEM, and we’re going to have like 30+ LCSs , 15 of each kind. We need to make the best use we can. That means up gunning and upgrading as quickly as possible.

          • Americanboi

            Okay, true. I think it sounds good. Hopefully who ever is in charge of the Navy’s projects in the Pentagon figures it out. And they realize what threats are going to be faced.

            I don’t think the U.S. military command is underestimating our adversaries. Who knows? We might have some classified projects for new stuff coming out. With time we’ll see. I do know that our focus spending on defense is taking a big shift away from terrorism and more towards facing and defeating adversaries like Russia and China and regain our military and technology edge over them. At least that’s what I’ve heard about the FY20 budget.

          • Rocco

            You must be a youngster? Because for the most part except for Duane on here we don’t like it for what it costs & intended purpose. It’s really a Costal patrol boat or Corvette. It intimidates nothing. Ser Arthur is right in his assessment

          • Americanboi

            Yes, I am a youngster. Honestly, I’ve tried to do some half-assed research on corvettes and frigates. And I still can’t seem to figure out what separates them from other ships. All I know about the Littoral Combat Ships is that they can get pretty close to shore.

          • Rocco

            Thanks for being honest. A ship that gets too close to shore in this day & age is asking for trouble. They are limited on where they can serve. They are not blue water ships. So the cost per each unit is not worth its intent & purpose.

          • PolicyWonk

            He’s just giving the typical speech, talking as if everything is tested, proven, and deployed. The only problem is that the testing in a lot of cases hasn’t gone well, few of the parts have been tested together (if any) with the rest of the companion components, while both LCS classes remain welded to the piers here in the dear old CONUS.

            Personally, I like the parts about the rest (or large majority) of us hating ships, and/or being simply too decrepit to comprehend what LCS is supposed to do, or how its supposed to do it.

            Evidently, the Duane-o-Laz is incapable of realizing that most of us despise the high-cost given the appallingly lousy design decisions, horrible ROI, high complexity, and commercial grade construction made w/r/t both classes.

            They could arm them and upgrade protection all they want, but LCS will never be a warship (the 100t of room for growth already proven woefully inadequate several times), no matter how many times PEO USC (or its few remaining fan-boy admirals looking for retirement jobs at LockMart or Austal) repeat the same BRAVO SIERRA to the contrary.

          • Rocco

            Agreed, I’d rather see the old wood planked PT boats in service!!

          • PolicyWonk

            At least the PT’s posed a very real threat (though LCS will be more dangerous when finally armed with NSM’s) for their size, very heavily armed, and manned by volunteers who earned hazardous duty pay.

            None of the above virtues are present in either class of LCS.

          • Rocco

            Indeed… Agreed

        • Lazarus

          So says the Russian troll. Your oversized corvettes will be no match for USN combined force and allies. The Russian navy is a sad, useless echo of its Soviet forebears.

        • Bubblehead

          The coming military military budget cuts is bad news for the FFGX. Where as a few months ago, it seemed quality was more important than price, has changed over night. Now the cheapest FFGX will probably win the tender.

          They will look for ways to lower the cost. Maybe a rotating EASR radar vs a fixed 3 array. Cut down on VLS numbers.

          The Spanish based frigate will be too expensive. FREMM probably will be at the upper end of the price also and will be left out. LM version is basically a brand new ship which makes it too risky/expensive. The NSC variant (assuming it is a NSC ship) is American made, a solid ship, already in mass production and the safest bet. Its a solid ship just not the flashy FREMM or F100 many people want.

          • Rocco

            Last paragraph agreed

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            So I agree with pretty much everything you said, and you said it well. I always thought the F-100 frigate would be the least likely- it’s basically an Arleigh Burke Jr. – I just don’t see Navy leadership going for that. I just an hour or so ago read that Austal is pushing their FFG(X) as the easiest to adopt since it’s apparently the exact same ship “from the maindeck down” and then upgrades above it. I have always had a good feeling about the FREMM but until it actually wins, I will worry. LM … don’t get me started. I also think the HII NSC-based Sea-Control/Patrol frigate is probably the best value — the one concern I have is something I recently read on a different website and it made a ton of sense. Because the NSC uses Diesel engines, (for long-term cruising and fuel efficiency, the idea being that the Coast Guard needs their cutters to Guard the Coast, slowly cruising long distances, than fast-carrier-task-forces speed etc.) they get great fuel economy but make a ton of noise. Someone made a great case that a FFG(X) with diesels would be useless in ASW and would be an easily-found target, plus would negate the effectiveness of it’s towed array and VDS. — I am not saying this is the truth, as I am not an engineer nor have any real knowledge on this subject. But it made sense to read this person’s argument. Anyway again I would love to see a FREMM with 32 VLS and would *love* to see it with a 5″ gun front and 76mm rear like in Italian versions.

      • David Oldham

        but most do if you intend on keeping a true blue water navy. The LCS is a huge backward step in that regard along with any inclination of bringing back “diesel”/coastal submarines.

        • Lazarus

          LCS is pretty decently sized and can handle rough weather. Sioux City weathered several storms getting to Annapolis and did fine. She is long enough and displaces enough to dispense with the fin stabilizers that were once planned for the variant. Those were perhaps useful on shorter, less displacement ships.

        • Rocco

          Actually bringing back Diesel boats ain’t a bad idea!! In typical fashion you tend to state comments without much backup!!

      • vetww2

        OR A YACHT. But, seriously, it should nave some fighting value.

      • PolicyWonk

        The Duane-o-Laz strikes again! 😛

    • Duane

      The “little popgun” is the world’s most effective gun for swarming boats and aircraft, bar none. Vastly more capable than any larger dia. gun – vastly higher firing rate, superior magazine depth, and superior multi-mode precision guided munitions capable of hitting moving targets – no other ship gun on the planet has that capability today.

      • Ed L

        i prefer the AK-630 with it’s independent power source and fire control

        • Lazarus

          That sounds like what a Russian troll would say.

          • Ed L

            Naw, Always have like weapons systems that use the KIS principle. Like my Winchester Model 1885 30-06 High Wall Rifle

          • Lazarus

            AK 630’s like most Russian naval weapons is not simple. How is SeaRAM that arms LCS not simple?

      • Patrick Bechet

        Here is what the Chinese CNO Admiral Wu thinks of the amazing LCS after touring USS Fort Worth—“ This is what the U.S. Navy has been making such a fuss about?” “It doesn’t look like a powerful ship,” Wu says, a bit undiplomatically. And the Chinese admiral is right. The USS Fort Worth isn’t a powerful ship; none of the LCSs are. The Fort Worth’s main gun is an MK 110 57mm gun that can lob a five-pound shell about five miles, and it has a few machine guns—good enough to sink some pirate motorboats but useless against bigger targets. And that’s it. No missiles, no torpedoes, just a popgun on the deck and some machine guns. (True, eventually some LCSs will be equipped with missiles, but not on the Fort Worth on this day.) Combine the lack of offensive and defensive firepower with the LCS’s low “survivability” rating and what you have is a ship that probably would be a sitting duck in any hot conflict at sea. And Wu knows it. He starts comparing the Fort Worth—unfavorably so—to the Chinese navy’s new Jiangdao-class (Type 056) corvettes, which bristle with 76mm guns, torpedo launchers, and YJ-83 long-range anti-ship missiles that can strike a target a hundred miles or more away. They’re small but they’re powerful—and the Chinese navy plans to churn them out by the dozens in the next few years. The new corvettes are multi-mission platforms that can be built quickly and in quantity without costing an arm and a leg. While the U.S. has been pouring billions of dollars into LCSs, which many see as glorified sea scooters, China has been investing in actual warships. It’s pretty clear to Wu which navy is getting the better deal. And the irony of it is inescapable: While China has been expanding from a brown-water (inland/ coastal) to a green-water (mostly coastal toward the sea) to a blue-water (deep sea) navy, with the LCS program the mighty U.S. Navy has been throwing much of its resources into creating a brown-water naval force in the Western Pacific. So as he and Greenert fly back to San Diego after the USS Fort Worth tour, Wu is probably feeling like a coach who has just scouted out the opposing team’s star players—and likes his own team’s chances. * *

        So yes Duane, clearly the LCS is the most amaxing ship on the seas, America’s enemies are terrified. Not.

        Quote is from Crashback by Michael Fabey.

        • Rocco

          Well put kudos

      • Rocco

        That gun couldn’t sink a garbage barge in the Hudson River!!

    • Ed L

      The Russians also practice using the RBU-6000’s for shore bombardment which must be impressive to see. Even if the range is less than a couple of miles.

      • Ser Arthur Dayne

        Now that is something I didn’t know, and would be a sight to see I agree wholeheartedly!

        In the game Dangerous Waters, the ships with the RBUs like the Udaloy can really ruin your day when you get in close.

    • vetww2

      PICKY, PICKY, PICKY.

      • Ser Arthur Dayne

        Sir if you’re a WW2 vet I humbly and wholeheartedly thank you for your service and defense of our Nation and withdrawal my pickiness, God Bless You, Sir.

  • Chesapeakeguy

    Good luck to this ship and her crews going forward.

    • Ser Arthur Dayne

      Hear, hear. Where’s a video of Tex from The Last Ship singing “and We’ll be Alllllllright, between the devil and the deep! when you need one lol.

      • muzzleloader

        Now that was a TV series that I hated to see end.

        • Ser Arthur Dayne

          Me too brother. But it kept getting worse. It seemed to me that the showrunners watched too many episodes of Game of Thrones and thought the best way to make the show was to kill people. Starting with Doctor Scott’s needless death and going straight through to the end, it was increasingly worse. And they were just on some other stuff by the end. So somehow Tavo got an Iowa-class battleship… but they didn’t mention how… and btw the scale was ridiculously messed up – the Iowa class not only physically DWARFS the DDG-51s, but ONE SHELL would not just put a hole in it, it would put it on the bottom of the ocean faster than you could say “Nathan James” … I mean they went from insane English immunes with an Astute-class to the Law & Order flunky trying to take over the world to some hippie mind-control scientist to some guy in Colombia trying to invade the US, I mean really now. However, the ship-based parts were superb. And they should never have killed Tex, he was awesome. They killed Tex to feature Meylan, which was stupid IMHO. Anyway, off soapbox.

          • muzzleloader

            Yeah, Dr. Scott getting killed was definitely a WTF. Tex too.
            The Nathan James set was amazing, and many were designed after actual Arliegh Burke specs. The USN gave the series a lot of support also.

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            Totally , my bro. Really awesome DDG-51 depiction. ….. On a humorous side note, I had literally JUST hit send on a response to someone else on here, on a several day old post on an older topic, where the person got rude with me so I had to get rude back. I hit send, go back to reading a book on my Android tablet, and 15 seconds later I get an email notification flash across the screen about ” comment post response USNI ” and I say to myself, “This freaking guy must be nuts! ” Then I realized it was completely unrelated and laughed, “Oh….” haha.

          • Rocco

            Lol not only that how does the skipper & XO go from commander ranks to 4 star Admirals??

          • muzzleloader

            War time promotions?

          • Rocco

            No just an other day at the hole.

          • Donald Carey

            A DD can take a 16 inch AP shell and, with a little luck just have a 16 inch hole in the hull., ala Taffy 3.

          • Rocco

            Ahhh The Johnston was sunk by a heavy cruiser not a BB!! And saluted in passing for a gallant battle to the end by the Japanese.

          • Donald Carey

            That doesn’t mean ships in Taffy 3 weren’t hit by BB shells that just went through, they were.

          • Rocco

            Wrong again!! Not in taffy 3!! Maybe you should watch the documentary!

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            Absolutely and totally false. A 16″ AP shell would sink a DD before it knew what was happening. You should research the physics and mathematics. It’s not even close.

          • Donald Carey

            History challenged are we? Try reading the FULL account of the battle between Taffy 3 and the IJN. A 16 inch AP shell can easily go right through an unarmored ship like a DD without exploding – it needs to hit something solid to set off its fuse, otherwise, all you get is a 16 inch hole.
            YOU are the one who should do some research.

        • Rocco

          Agreed even though the opening attack on Mayport ,my old base was a little far fetched!!

          • muzzleloader

            True that. How did those Pucaras with a combat range of 200 +miles reach Mayport?
            Even if they sortied from Cuba it would have been a one way mission.
            Plus I have never seen mountains in Mayport, lol.

          • Rocco

            🤔⚓️

          • Rocco

            BTW the base golf course had a small mountain on the 18th hole!! Lol

      • Rocco

        Where… Or there’s??

  • Lazarus

    It was a great event. A little on the chilly side but a beautiful day for a commissioning ceremony.

    • PolicyWonk

      Unfortunately, the only thing commissioned on the Severn river was a floating corporate welfare program, without a warship by intent, design or construction in sight.

      I liked the part about the thousands of sensors sending little messages the best! Did they hang a copy of the legal waiver in the wardroom it needed to be commissioned to remind all aboard that the ship isn’t built to USN survivability standards?

      😀

      • Lazarus

        Unlike you, I was present; toured the ship and met the crew. It has all of the damage control gear and crew training of any other USN ship. It can go places nearly all other USN can’t because of its shallow draft. It is a most impressive ship.

        • PolicyWonk

          It can have all the gear it wants: if it wasn’t designed or constructed as a warship, it won’t help much. As the USN itself declared, they’re built sufficiently strong for the crew to abandon ship before it sinks if damaged in battle.

          Not exactly the greatest or most inspiring recruiting motto…

          • Lazarus

            The SECNAV Under and CNO spoke at the commissioning and both described her as a warship. Given that USS Chancellorsville was severely damaged by a drone hit several years ago I would argue that no modern warship will take hits from cruise missiles and keep fighting. Are AEGIS cruisers also not warships?

          • Rocco

            If you put 50cals in the Admirals barge that’s considered a war ship….

          • Americanboi

            If it is a joke, great, but if it isn’t then it the Admirals Barge really can’t be. It needs to be commanded by a fully commissioned officer and sailors of government military discipline. And it needs to be clearly identified as a boat from the United States. In order for it to be considered a war ship.

          • Rocco

            You kill me!!

          • Lazarus

            We have trouble getting the PC’s listed as warships.

          • Rocco

            ??

          • PolicyWonk

            Yes they do – the deceit never ends, does it?

            Nor does the deliberate defrauding of the American public and HoR’s, or the willingness to send our sailors to sea in ships that were funded, designed, and built on a foundation of blatant lies.

            Our AEGIS cruisers, and DDGs, are all built to USN survivability standards. But as the criminals in PEO LCS (now USC) finally admitted in Defense Industry Daily, no version of LCS past, present, or future, will ever be built to (or meet) naval survivability standards.

          • Lazarus

            There is no deceit as far as those of us who have served in these ships goes. No one has defrauded the public in any way. Everything anyone wants to know about any class of USN ship is pretty readily available.
            How do you suggest that the USN make any class of ship “survivable” in terms of getting hit by a medium to large cruise missile, torpedo or mine? Armor is pretty much useless these days against such a threat. The USN tested the 12 inch armor belt used in the IOWA class battleship’s in 1991 and found that it could be penetrated by a large cruise missile. The only other option is to make all ships large and fill their magazines with expensive, defensive systems like the SM-6.
            Some ships, especially the small ones are inherently expendable I’m not sure how anyone gets around that fact. I would be curious to hear what you suggest is the right solution to that issue.

          • Adrian Ah

            I have to admit that this is a valid point.

            Modern warships are quite thin skinned.

            The LCS is simply more so.

            Serious thought needs to be given to applying thicker, copious amounts of modern armour. It’s 2018, not 1940. There are many advances in materials and design.

          • Donald Carey

            Armor costs, not just for it but, as it has weight and takes up space, operating costs (more fuel to push a heavier ship around), not to mention more costly repairs after doing the bump. TANSTAAFL

  • vetww2

    Now, if we can only find some use for it, besides beihg a great election campaign money generator, we will all be happy,

  • Bubblehead

    Why don’t they save everybody the trouble, not to mention save some sailors lives, and go ahead and sink this thing off the East Coast for an artificial reef. At least it would serve a purpose down there. The Grouper & Snapper can make better use of it than the USN.

    • Rocco

      Your avatar name is an understatement!

  • Adrian Ah

    There’s no point comparing the LCS to a frigate of similar length. The LCS wasn’t designed to be one. It was meant for anti mine, anti submarine, patrolling to allow destroyers to to anti piracy missions and go to more dangerous areas.

    The problem is, is that 11 years after the first LCS was launched, it still can’t do those things.

    They were meant to be deployed worldwide .

    Since they can’t do anything, they aren’t.

    I think there is potential, if you think laterally, ( turn the Indy Class into an arsenal ship, with data eupplied by cec ), but it’s another example of the failure of the usn policies of the late 1990s to early 2000s.

    • Rocco

      Agreed