..and construct a better ship loosely based on the first one.
..explained in many posts that this ship is so ill equipped as to be an national security threat more than an implement and therefore a waste and danger so save your emotional postings. Please dont bunch your panties.
For someone to make this statement about someone they have never met is proof the accuser needs their head examined.
It's either that, or you're just making stuff up as you go, pretending to know better than the people who put out the tender in the first place.
Thank you again Tom for clarifing what many were asking about the underwhelming first ship capability. It appears some refuse to admit the first ship does not have enough capability despite what recent CRS reports and even justify their arguements by posting that the ship is optimum. It is too bad people keep talking out of their....
He said :
There's no hard facts here other than the note about cost, dude, just a "possibly" and an "if". But what you're forgetting is that if the navy wanted 48 cells from the beginning, they could have asked for them.
So what you're saying is, is that despite being able to dictate what weapons fit would go on the FFG-X in the first place, the Navy is so riddled with Russian and/or PLAN plants that they deliberately didn't specify 48 cells so that America would end up with a subpar ship?
Lets juist say anyone, like you who claimed Flight 1 has a sufficient load, as you did, is advocating for a losing ship.
Like... The USN?
You do realize that on a billion dollar warship, a 16-24 million dollar cost increase is the literal equivalent of pocket change, right? Price isn't the driver here. The Navy decided it doesn't need the capability. But Armchair Admirals are convinced that they know better than the Navy does
You must joking. Any one paying attention to comparisons on this thread show the total number of PLAN combatants will severely outnumber USN total in decade or so in the Pacific. This is every US ship being deployed in the Pacific. Even if these ships are lesser they are just too many not to win. Meanwhile the USN must cover global commitments so would not even have the ships necessary to be outnumberd. Nearly double outnumbered. .
Now who's joking? Who cares about total number? Particularly when most of those "ships" can be sunk with 20mm. They're coastal patrol craft that will never even sniff blue water or a USN Task Force. Not every ship needs to be "the best thing since sliced bread." They need to do a specific job. These ships can do that. And if you're complaining about total numbers, I would have thought you would be overjoyed at the lower cost. Because that means more can be built. So which is it? Fewer, more expensive assets? Or more, cheaper assets. You can't have it both ways. Not unless you live in a fantasy world where budgets don't matter.
Which is strange, considering that the USN started as a small ship Navy and built some of the best small ships in the world. But somewhere along the way, it forgot how to build small combatants
Someone needs to show how the USN wants less firepower and at range ie VLS while being continually out giunned. Seems like piled on emotional attacks.
Well, a lot of European "frigates" are the same size and cost of a Burke. So you have to be at least a little selective. But I think you're right overall. The European navies don't have the budgets that the USN does, so they have a much bigger incentive to cram as much capability into as cheap a platform as possible. It does explain why the USN would consider European frigates more attractive than updated LCS though (which IIRC, was the original plan to fill the need for frigates).
