You work for Gene Taylor (D-MS)? He's proposed the exact same thing.
I doubt that the hull design for the LCS would work for a WHEC replacement (WMSL). For the WMEC replacement (WMSM) it might meet CG reqs, but the Navy would need to give up on the 40+ kt spd requirement which I doubt the CG would see as a need.
Of course, it's someone else's idea other than the CG's idea to adopt the LCS in the first place. Not sure if it would happen or not. I can see on a WHEC-type platform having all that extra space and actually using it. But, on a WMEC-type plaform that you are only planning for 60 day patrols it seems like a waste to me. Not to mention with the way we are reducing crew sizes would we have enough sailors to maintain a ship that large?
I agree. Funny how we spent lots and lots of years fulfilling all our missions on WHEC's ranging in size from 255' to 327'. Then we jumped to 378' and now we need ships that are over 400'?
Our "WMEC's" were all about 200-210'. Now they need to be 350 or more......
I'm waiting for that golden day when all of our requirements are literally all printed out and laid out on one table, given a critical look, and some difficult decisions are made...
Fewer ships, less people; training requirements multiplying by the day, increased maintenance on aging platforms, more and more assessment visits; all the while, those of us on ships are fully accountable and are making things work. Don't get me wrong; it's all good stuff, but there are a whole lot more requirements these days. The bubble hasn't popped yet because the cuttermen are too proud to let it happen. Like many others, I'm still afloat and will continue to serve afloat, although it isn't getting easier. From what I've seen, though, afloat career paths aren't becoming any more popular. I sometimes wonder where our afloat workforce will be in 10 years; seems to me that it is diminishing.
There needs to be one archer - I use that word because an archer takes aim at the desired end state, fires each arrow with purpose, mindful of the cost and incremental benefit. There needs to be a single clearing house that consolidates all these things, equipped with the ability to say "No - we are not going to do that" and/or "we are going to do this; these things are of lesser importance, so we will not do these select things, so that we can be able to reasonably accomplish what absolutely must be done and develop or core skill sets."
Go FORCECOM! I have high hopes, although my cynical side says that I may be screaming into the wind...
Speaking of the LCS...I heard the Navy's invested big money designing a 378' ship that is well equipped for littoral operations. Actual littoral naval combat is dangerous business...seems to me that that kind of cash investment wouldn't be expendable by any means...not really what you want on the front lines. I know of a 378' ship that is well designed for littoral operations and is time proven over 40 years. Hopefully with all the money that is being spent, an equally effective asset is produced.
Originally posted by 1110: No, actually 8 to replace 12.
Looking at the decision in the entirty though, you have to look at 'cutter days at sea' now vs 'cutter days at sea' once all WMSLs are up and running and all WHECs AND all WMECs are replaced by WMSMs. By most estimates and calcualtions, we will probably end up with MORE 'cutter days at sea' in the end. (Without any increase in 'crew days at sea') One of the major reasons I highlighted probably above is that by the time all of the above happens, someone who is a LTjg/LT today will be the Commandant. SOME of the crew reductions are legit issues of technology requiring less people. I can account for (and signed off on personnally) with 3 person reduction from 378 staffing to WMSL staffing.
