I suppose if the USCG is failing miserably with its own plan to build a blue water ship, the USN should fold the USCG into USN and take over all those duties. There are certainly enough ships (especially in reserve) to do the job and train reserve sailors.

Nothing wrong with the USN having a littoral ship/fleet, as long as the resources are allocated.

Posted by: Rob at April 16, 2008 01:49 PM

Tom wrote: "*Today*, I doubt anyone can lay out lower lifetime costs for thoroughly roboticized ships above about 50-100 tons that have any hope of being in sight of real costs."

Don't be so pessimistic. I have seen 50-100+ tonne roboticised boats in the making and that with realistic service life costs. Try 5 years.

Posted by: Ann O'Nymous at March 25, 2008 01:49 PM

just read somethin about army heavy lift needs.i heard a lond time agao about a idea to build a ship like a mile lond that could have every plane practicly in us inventory(minus globmaster and b52 of course) land we already landed a c130 i think it was like supposed to be mad of oil rig tops what ever there called could make somethin like that?

Posted by: James at March 21, 2008 02:55 PM

Dennis wrote:

"No crew, no berthing areas, no heating/air conditioning for the berthing areas, no survival equipment (life rafts).... the list can go on and on.....
This would half the size of the ship.
If you are skeptical about a robot ship, I guess and "automated ship" is also possible. With just a skeleton crew for repair and command. It still would be significantly smaller and potentially cheaper (in the long run due to personnel cost, not to build)"

Remember that in combat *most* of the crew will be keeping the ship afloat once someone puts holes in it.

Your suggestion would be precisely the best policy for one of 2 situations a.)The ships are built, and the not used in warfare for all of their expected lifetime, so no one puts holes in them, and they don't have to be patched by humans to save the ship, and they don't sink, and don't have to be replaced. b.) They are sent into an ongoing long-term intense littoral war where the bad guys are sinking them. That means we try to mass produce them with already set up production facilities, lowering their capital cost, so that replacing them is less costly than ships having crews to patch them once someone puts holes in them.

In any other (far more probable) future, the ships that sink without humans to repair them in one littoral conflict will be unavailable for the next one, a few years later, because production facilities are not ramped up to truly mass produce them. When each conflict has our enemies start sinking ships, there will be costs to ramp up production facilities, then immediately after the guns stop firing, those will be cut short to save money in peacetime. Then, when the next conflict starts we will spend the money to ramp up again, ....

This is an exacerbation of already existing problems in cycles of procurement and cost that will not be solved without self-repairing ships, on a level of action that is nowhere near being properly conceived of, much less budgeted, much less engineered, much less in production.

In as little as 15 years this may change substantially. *Today*, I doubt anyone can lay out lower lifetime costs for thoroughly roboticized ships above about 50-100 tons that have any hope of being in sight of real costs.

Regards,

Tom Billings

Posted by: Tom Billings at March 21, 2008 12:14 PM

If these are small ships for coastal interdiction, why not team up with the Coast Guard.
I think I remember reading that this almost happened, but they had "differing needs". Sounds more like people cannot play well together.
However, even though the technology is new, the robot boats I have seen developed would be an excellent replacement for these small ships.
No crew, no berthing areas, no heating/air conditioning for the berthing areas, no survival equipment (life rafts).... the list can go on and on.....
This would half the size of the ship.
If you are skeptical about a robot ship, I guess and "automated ship" is also possible. With just a skeleton crew for repair and command. It still would be significantly smaller and potentially cheaper (in the long run due to personnel cost, not to build)

Posted by: Dennis at March 21, 2008 08:51 AM

http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/images/060923-O-0000X-002.jpg

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/14324.jpg

http://www.lmlcsteam.com/photo_gallery/construct_progress/index.html

Posted by: jon at March 21, 2008 06:25 AM

hehehe one more realy think we should just build reactor only ships from crusiers up

one thing that gets me still is the trust in stealth seems our maginot line

Posted by: James at March 20, 2008 07:57 PM

ah thanks man hmmm what are the factors for the lack of PBR in ships?

though i also just realized the fact that its probbly got the tin hulls like the other ships in the fleet and its operating so close to shore

and another if its supposed to be cheap why the uber price tag?

and has anyone thought about converting some old crusiers or such to pocket carriers?...maybe come up with one? with the JSF or whateer and herrier not to mention the cobras and black hawk UAV damn could be crazy as hell

Posted by: James at March 20, 2008 07:55 PM

For James and Camp -

The LCS does not use nuclear power for a number of reasons, but the biggie is that it's intended to be dirt cheap. A nuke plant isn't cheap. Also recall that this thing, in either manufacturing team's design, is pretty damn small. A nuke powers a steam turbine, so you're talking about a significant size/weight penalty for vessels under light cruiser size (using the old nomenclature.) As for PBMRs, well, that's some darned new-fangled technology you got yerself there, youngin'. Thus far, few have been built, and no one's using them in mobile or seagoing environments yet. That's not a recipe you want involved in the one of the most numerous surface combatant ship classes (planned) for the next thirty years. Lastly, not everyone really wants a nuclear reactor in their territory. Fewer want them in their fisheries and ports. For a littoral craft, that means suddenly loosing allies' good graces every time you deploy. And it's a small ship, so even if you don't need fuel, you need food for crew, and that's space you're missing.

Posted by: AhzeeDahak at March 20, 2008 07:32 PM

question?

does anybody have any picture of the General Dynamics LCS, I'm talking real picture, not an artist rendering.

I like the look of the ship, and would like to see it, since it should be pretty much completely built by now.

Posted by: murc at March 20, 2008 06:47 PM

I have to agree with James... Why couldn't they have just used Nuclear?! 8|

Posted by: Camp at March 20, 2008 06:03 PM

Hey, it's only government money...Right? (grimace)

Posted by: Max at March 20, 2008 03:22 PM

diesel generators.....sigh god were suffering a fuel shortage but still use diesel

pebble bed reactors folks

Posted by: James at March 20, 2008 02:45 PM