|
Seqenenra posted:For some reason it is considered a leadership failure if you can't fix Little Johnny. I've literally been called a "leadership failure" because SN Timmy did something stupid on leave.
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
Seqenenra posted:You must be in 7th Fleet. If anything horrible or even not horrible happens it is a leadership failure here. I don't know if the policy has changed, but a couple of years ago whenever SN Timmy would have some kind of liberty incident, the first khaki would have to explain to Mr. CNFJ himself what happened and where leadership failed. Naw. That was when I was an ensign back in the ole East Coast Navy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
I don't know anything worth writing a book over, but I've learned a couple of pretty cool things.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Analogical posted:But your archer avatar defined you I had a Riker avatar for a long time prior to Archer. I decided it was time to go back for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
SpaceJustice posted:These avatars have messed with me. For some reason whenever I read your posts I assume it's Riker behind the keyboard. This is my proudest day.  
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
orange juche posted:You know who else dressed as Riker? Francostein. Except I'm loving awesome. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
Boon posted:Things good about Norfolk:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
This page is pretty  so far
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
justice4trayvawn posted:rip everyones bodybuilding.com packages
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
CMD598 posted:What's this I hear about the LCS being rebranded as a frigate? Source? Are you taking about the "Future Combatant" concept which they said is going to based on some LCS design?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Seqenenra posted:"It will still be the same ship, the same program of record, just with an appropriate and traditional name." Ah, cool. I actually agree with it. Even when I was in the LCS program I thought it was stupid they weren't called frigates or corvettes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
buttplug posted:And hey, they're just as useless as FFGs to boot....Might as well call it what it is [a missile sponge]. Saying they're useless is a bit of stretch.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:FFGs or the LCS? Both?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Seqenenra posted:LCS is certainly useless. This is not right. They certainly can fill the same role that the OHP's do now which is exactly what they are designed to do. Not saying that the classes are perfect, or even problem free, but they're not worthless. If you want to argue that the Navy should not be doing the things that the OHP's have been doing for decades, and thus shouldn't need the LCS, that's much more nuanced. But to say that LCS is useless is wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Boon posted:The LCS is not useless. It is, however, expensive and does absolutely nothing to mitigate the massive deficiency in our surface Navy. I don't think anyone said this. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Seqenenra posted:Maybe I should have said that as a sonar technician, the LCS seems useless to me. It also appears helpless in an AAW environment and kind of under-gunned when compared next to ships with a 5". It has two helos, but so do most other ships. It just seems like a ship with no role other than "defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in the littorals" whatever that means. Maybe it'll be good for guarding the oil terminals next to Iraq if we're still doing that these days. You are right that it is not a very capable ASW asset, but it wasn't really intended to be. Also, 57mm is, no poo poo, the best gun in the Navy and I would take it in a heart beat over the 5". The thing is that it is not a destroyer. It never will be, and it wasn't intended to be. It is a corvette by most standards, but since the Navy is so DDG centric at this point people get upset that there is non-destroyer combatant out there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Boon posted:I'm agreeing it's not useless and elaborating that it's an insane folly? The ship is not an insane folly, but it's very reasonable/interesting to argue that the maritime strategy that would lead to the ship being built is folly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
bengy81 posted:Have they actually been able to get one of those stupid loving things underway without it almost sinking yet? Yes
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Boon posted:I'm not really sure how you can defend these ships. Both here and on the high seas. The ships and their development are misguided at best. There is a very good reason that the original buy was cut beyond the long-term financial projections. The program was cut for a number of reasons, not the least of which is because the Navy can't make up its mind what its strategy is going to be. Also you are exactly correct that it's not better then any other ship. However regardless of how much the cost balloons, it still way cheaper then BURKE which is the real point. Since the bulk of the Navy's mission is not really Aegis centric it does not make sense to crank out billion dollar destroyers to chase pirates, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Boon posted:The ships have a very limited role in today's Navy. Not only would I hate to serve on one of those pieces of poo poo, I'd be in many ways morally outraged that anyone would even send them into harm's way if their role were expanded. I guess I would ask what the primary threat the Navy addresses actually is? If you say that LCS is unsuitable for today's operational environment that implies you think that the primary threat, and the driver of our ship acquisition, is a technologically advanced, near peer competitor which I don't necessarily agree with.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:They were originally supposed to be multi role enough to go in harm's way. We paid for that capability and didn't get it. No they weren't. They never were. Laranzu posted:Having a warship that can only operate in permissive environments is pretty dumb. You can do that with a Boston whaler and a .50cal. Iran already does. While the permissive environment thing is a fair point, the idea that you can replicate LCS with FAC/FIAC is dumb. Laranzu posted:We could have purchased or licensed an allied design perfectly suited for littoral poo poo pirate interdiction for much much less cash and have a capable platform with a defined role. Actually we can't. Legally the Navy is barred from buying and building foreign designs. That said trying to replicate the LA FAYETTE class, minus some of it's fancier AAW capabilities, would probably have been a better idea, not going to deny it. The problem is that we don't have enough data to really judge the effectiveness of the LCS hulls. Basically they are in the same place that both the BURKE and the PERRY class were in at this point in their lives which is everyone saying they were some combination of too expensive/underarmed/not as survivable when compared to their predecessors.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:The littoral is in harm's way. Unless it's somewhere off the coast of San Diego. The proposed mission sets were definitely not in pacified environments. Mine sweeping / asw / sw / could put the ship in danger really fast. Yes, some of its mission sets were not in fully in permissive environments, but that doesn't mean that it can't go there. It's SeaRAM is literally the most effective self defense weapon in the Navy. The missions you mentioned already required CRUDES cover with existing assets. Do you think we send MCM's in alone and unafraid? The point is that the vast majority of The missions the Navy does are in permissive environments and single mission focused. The LCS is designed with this in mind and it's supposed to "fight out" of trouble, not "fight into" it. It's a corvette that is open ocean capable and world wide deployable which is something none of the other trendy LCS alternatives (looking at you VISBY) offer. The fact that I can buy 3 to 4 for the cost of a DDG and send them off to do the poo poo jobs frees up a DDG for more specialized and (arguably) more important stuff like BMD patrols. Laranzu posted:I know this, it's just as dumb. Throw money into a procurement hole just because. The designs are out there. You want the "street fighter" which is basically a Russian style disposable ship with missiles and guns bolted all over it. It gets trotted out in LCS arguments all the time. The problem is the concept is dumb, and harkens back to an antiquated method of naval warfare. The reason why other navies build ships like that is because they have to. The fact is that we don't use ships to kill other ships. We use airplanes to kill other ships, and we use ships to protect our airplanes. Wanting a street fighter is like saying you think the Navy is going to get into this hypothetical prolonged conflict where we are going to be engaging enemy combatants with our ships but won't be committing our carriers and their strike groups to the problem for Reasons. The bit about extending sensor networks is important, true, but is done by other assets better. ManMythLegend fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
buttplug posted:How do you figure? Most of the mission modules *still* only exist on paper. Right now, it does everything the OHP can do (minus tail ops) but better. The mission modules will add capability beyond that. Even if most of them do end up being vaporware LCS can perform all of the numerous "fleet bitch" roles that we send frigates out to do now and that aren't going to just go away when the OHP's do.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
buttplug posted:And what's the last useful thing OHP has done? Without inviting the OPSEC fairy's wrath on this thread, there is a very important capability that is only possessed by OHP's and LCS's that has led to some very recent, very newsworthy events. That is in addition to the more mundane tasks they can perform. buttplug posted:And seriously, that's pretty SWO of you "even if the mission modules end up being vaporware". How about we not take a program that has already ballooned 150% in cost and done nothing of demonstrable value and say it does "everything our most neutered, least-capable platform does" and call it a win. OHP was widdled down to the point of being nothing more than a presence. It's most capable weapons system was a last-defense system on any other CRUDES platform. You have to step back for a moment and separate the LCS platform, from the LCS program. I was there in early days of the program. It was, and still is, a dumpster fire. I agree that it has been managed terribly by the Navy and executed horrendously by the contractors. It is the worst of the early 2000's SWE all rolled into one. I will never defend the LCS program, and I think that anyone involved in its procurement should be fired and barred from any work in acquisitions. In fact, as I've said before, if I could go back in time I would probably have tried to get a LA FAYETTE variant minus the fancy air defense capabilities and with a TACTAS or MFTA bolted on. The platform however is a very different matter. The LCS ships do exactly what they are needed to do, which is fill in for all of the stupid Phase 0/1 missions that the Navy is expected to perform. A lot of the hate for the ship comes from hate for that mission set because it's not sexy, it's not high speed, it's pretty lovely and boring actually, and since the LCS is a ship that is designed solely to execute that mission set it gets labeled as "useless". However, the bottom line is that that mission set is here to stay. It's not going away. If anything, it's going to get even larger given how the demand signal for CNT/CP/MIO/EMIO/Partnership Stations/etc has grown continuously over the last decade. That demand signal literally cannot be met by building BURKEs. Period. Full stop. You can stomp your feet, and cross your arms, all you want but it's just a fact. That's why I get upset that people say that the LCS is useless. It's because they're wrong, but they can't even comprehend why they're wrong. Complaining that the LCS is not as combat effective or survivable as a BURKE or a TICO is like complaining that an OHIO is bad at air defense. They are not designed to meet the same mission set. They never were. Comparing an LCS to anything not a missileless-OHP is an apples to oranges comparison. That's why I said before that the proper way to argue about LCS is not complain about it's capabilities, but about the strategy that led to it's development and feeds it's ROC/POE. If you think that the Navy should be 100% geared to fighting the next Big WarTM with a near peer competitor that's fine. There are cogent arguments to be made there. I totally agree that in a Big War maritime strategy, LCS has little to no place. However, that's not the strategy the Navy is operating under. It's not 100% the Navy's fault either, as none of the National Defense Strategies for the last 3 presidents have set that framework. The strategies that have been in place for nearly the last two decades have been one that focuses on low intensity, Phase 0/1 operations. That all said, the LCS is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. However, it does exactly what it's supposed to do, and does it rather well. Having served on both an LCS and an FFG I felt way safer on the LCS, so the notion that we should all be outraged about the survivability of the platform is hyperbole. Its Sea Giraffe radar is one of the most capable in the fleet outside of SPY. The SeaRAM is literally the most effective self defense weapon in the fleet outside of possibly SM-6 but I haven't seen the all the Pk's for that yet. The 57mm BOFORS is an amazing gun and is better than the 5" in almost every way except max range. They're getting back fitted with 30mm remote cannons to add a little more FAC/FIAC punch. They're getting fitted with Hellfire Longbow to give them a slightly longer stick. These are all things that are explicitly better then the OHP's they're replacing. Are they good as a DDG? No, and they never will be. As for flaws, they lack organic ASW capabilities. Minus hoping for a mission package to work, they can embark SH-60R's which are amazing ASW assets, but without a tail or hull mounted sonar they aren't really useful for screening. Arguably their biggest weakness, and one you never hear about, is their crew size/berthing arrangements. There is very little margin of error for a person getting sick or hurt on deployment without impacting mission capability. Endurance concerns are a red herring because all of the numbers you hear are for the ship sprinting around at 45+ knots constantly which, as we all should know, is not how ships operate. The standard configuration is for them to steam around on one or both MPDE's which gives them comparable endurance to other classes and still lets them get to 17+ knots. The bottom line is that if you're going to complain about LCS, at least know what you're talking about before you accuse me of being a SWO and defending it while you rattle off the standard Sailor Bob talking points. I will also remind you that both the ARLEIGH BURKE and OLIVER HAZARD PERRY classes, which are both continuously put on pedestals during LCS arguments, had literally the same complaints levied against them when they were first hitting the fleet and everything with them turned out fine. ManMythLegend fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
TCD posted:What do you think of the SSC and adding an over the horizon missile? I think OTH capability is very nice and good. Even if you're never going to make a SAG full of LCS's to go hunt down LUYANGs or SOVREMENNYs, having an LCS or two in the AOR with an OTH missile changes the targeting calculus of the adversary because they can't really just ignore it any more and it forces them try to dedicate assets to locate it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
buttplug posted:First off, those aren't SailorBob talking points. If you want talking points I'll post the [anonymized] talking points I have laying around from a very recently retired 3-star (sent to me via private message) that backs up absolutely everything I said and then-some. I'm not separating the program from the platform because at the end of the day garbage in = garbage out. And that is exactly what we're doing with this program. Great, so we've moved the goalposts from "useless" to "not survivable". Your anonymous 3 Star friend probably makes a lot of very good points. The bottom line is that LCS is not as survivable as other combatants. It's just not. I bring up my time on OHP's as more of a point to say that we as a fleet and a Navy are totally cool with the survivability of the PERRYs but LCS, which is the same or better, is just a bridge too far somehow. However, survivability relative to probably the best warship class in the world (ie the ARLEIGH BURKE) and overall survivability are not the same thing. Again, you have to look at the ROC/POE for the LCS design. They were never intended to do go drive straight into a Chinese port through a hail of YJ-82's and SIZZLERs to drop an MCM drone. They were designed to operate primarily in area of low ASCM threat, or on the fringes of higher threat areas as part of a more robust force. If you thought they were too expensive now I can't even imagine how much they would be per ship if we tried to BURKE them out. They are however survivable enough to exceed their initial ROC/POE. As for the bit about not being a 21st century ship I ask you what your ideal 21st century ship looks like? Because for all the flak it gets, and in spite of all it's flaws, it's got some pretty revolutionary stuff going on inside to include survivability features found in no other active warships in the world. ManMythLegend fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:This is very interesting to read because as a civilian all I see in the news is "lol they're literally dissolving into the ocean" and things like that. I've never heard the perspective of someone who's actually got any experience with them. One thing I am curious about though: Which of the two classes, Independence and Freedom, is better? Or perhaps, what does Independence do better than Freedom and vice versa? If this is a nonsense question I apologize. LCS has a lot of (rightly earned) parallels to the F-35 program which isn't good for it's perception both in and out of the Navy. As I fully admit, it's far from perfect, and probably not the choice that should have been made a decade or so ago, but they're still decent ships for what they're designed to do. As far as which is better, that's a tougher call. I'm probably a little biased since I served on INDEPENDENCE, but I prefer that design. FREEDOM is a little faster and has a slightly better combat system but the INDY design has much, much better layout, more space for add ons and what nots, is more stable, and more survivable (  ). Also, the yard that builds the GD variant is way better and so can handle a higher volume and produce a higher quality product then the LM one.All of that is kind of a moot point however since the Navy completely pussied out on down-checking one so we're stuck with both. Which, incidentally doesn't help the cost per ship numbers that get trotted out either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
buttplug posted:Oh, would you like to talk about the guts of the warship and just what's going on inside? All of those systems that are networked together? Yea. loving. Garbage. Toss me a high-side address and I'll show you what I'm talking about. It epitomizes what happens when you plan/procure in a vacuum and let SWOs (i.e. not the IDC) have the final chop in the acquisition of C4I systems. The network does have it's flaws, and you are absolutely right that it was not the best design and contributes to the perception of a "lack" of "survivability". I never claimed otherwise. buttplug posted:The Navy writ large was "cool" with the survivability of the OHP insofaras they had no other choice. Aside from the one cool-guy function the OHP has, it is often relegated to "bullet sponge" position in any given screen and is rarely tasked to do anything with any actual importance. Dunno what your FFG was doing, but the ones I've interacted with in C7F were generally patted on the head and sent to do innocuous minutae....because they were more of a liability than an asset. You seem to forget that the OHP was literally created to be a missile/torpedo sponge during the Cold War. Like that was it's explicit purpose. They were supposed to hang out in the GIUK gap, tail out, and find/get sunk by Soviet subs, or hang out on the fringes of a strike group and soak up the first missile salvos before they got to the carrier. They were the cheap, disposable, small-surface combatant of the Navy 40 years ago. Them being treated like that is not some new development. My FFG did exactly the innocuous minutea that you're talking about it. You mentioning it makes it seem like you're completely missing the point that I'm trying to make. That innocuous poo poo consumes the vast majority of the fleet's time. It's a demand signal that is very large and growing. What you seem to be missing is that cutting LCS, and using that funding to build a couple of more BURKES will actually make the fleet less combat effective as we have to increase the OPTEMPO of a relatively small number of BURKEs that are completely overmatching the problem set rather than let them focus on more important stuff (BMD, AD, ASW collection, etc).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
ded posted:unless i start seeing some powerpoints on this lcs crap i'm not going to be happy You joke, but when I was in the program I disagreed with how the different watch conditions had been set up and handed down from on high. I made a power point with a little animation that so impressed the powers that be that it led to a direct change in some fundamental documents for the class. What I'm saying is that power point has made us stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:You really need to stop saying "demand signal." I... I can't... 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Analogical posted:~noble talk~ lol
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
krispykremessuck posted:m0t and MML post dick pics in fyad to determine whether OHP/BURKE or LCS is the better platform because otherwise this poo poo will never be over No need. I never claimed it was the best because it's not. I just hate it when people rail against kool aid drinking and then grab a pitcher full of a different color and chug until they drown.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Sorry for the Navy talk in the Navy thread. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:Dunno why it took so long to get rid of the twelve dudes on the bridge and drive it with a joystick jockey "Because that's the way we've always done it." 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
buttplug posted:I think literally every single time I have ever heard anyone say this throughout my career, I have instantly written them off in my mind as a complete and total loving waste of time/space/life/air. Samesies.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Seqenenra posted:A coworker of mine that taught department head school at Newport was by his CO that it takes 200 ensigns to make one department head. To me that seems like a pretty bad attrition rate. It's not thaaaaaaaat bad. It's still bad though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
orange juche posted:Only the most retarded stay in, eh MML? Or the ones with kids...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Just to dispel the "200 Ensigns for every 1 DH" thing a little more, the number of DH's that need to come from each year group is somewhere in the neighborhood of 275 (plus or minus a few depending on some minutia). If that 200:1 ratio were true that would mean that the SWO community alone would have to assess 55,000 ensigns a year. Edit: For actual numbers, the retention rate for the last decade or so is around 30% or so for the SWO community. ManMythLegend fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:I still remember SWOSDOC - one of the instructors asked "how many of you are going the full 20?" Yeah, it's absolutely true. I'm pretty candid with both juniors and seniors alike that I would have gotten out even with my MSR ending in 08/09 at the height of the recession if it weren't for having a newborn. It was like the perfect storm.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
Eh. Kids are ok. I don't regret having them. They're not for everyone though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 13:49
|
|