Patria AMV and the USMC.

Ok, a couple of things. That's being tested at Pendleton...Second I didn't know that the vehicle was suppose to be able to operate in surf conditions. Lastly...I like it. Still love the modularity of the now dead SEP but this seems to be doing the job. Also, its very interesting that the USMC would put out a video featuring ONE vehicle. This might be a nod toward the Patria AMV being single sourced for production. The Commandant said that he wanted this vehicle quickly...a selection now would be about right to have it in production by fiscal year 2013 or just after the next Presidential election.

Even Galrahn acknowledges the need for the EFV!

Galrahn has a post covering the fighting in Libya and where it might be going.  Read the whole thing but this stood out...

And yes, I'll say it, the EFV sure would be useful in the type of amphibious raid scenario we see in Libya where we do not want under any circumstances to have US Marines on land for longer than a single day at a time. The ability to rapidly move a Marine Rifle Company to shore from sea at sunset, roll into the city, blow up enemy equipment in an urban environment (hiding by a hospital, for example), hit a FARP, attack another couple targets, then pull back out to sea before daylight... EFV sure would be useful. I am not convinced the AAVs can do that, and if you send M1A1s and LAVs, you are staying longer than a single night because you can't get them on and off the shore fast enough.

Let me just add this.  It seems like our past is our future.  During the 1930's the US Marines were involved in a series of small wars.  While Afghanistan and Iraq don't qualify...conflicts like Libya do.  These are the types of missions that the Marine Corps is expert at...these are the missions that will be our nations future.

UPDATE:
Galrahn also makes this tantalizing and fierce statement...

It is a true lack of respect for Europe how almost everyone interviewed on cable TV describes the European military capabilities as the punchline of a joke.

Its not just me (talking to my readers in Europe).  There is a feeling in the US amongst 'talking head' military experts that Europe is not adequately pulling its weight in even this limited war.

If Europe (as a whole) is going to take its proper place in the world then it might be time (especially in light of the Dutch and UK military cutbacks) for you to fully integrate your military forces. 

Dutch slide off the cliff.

Jonathan (thanks bud!) sent me this disturbing article laying out the Dutch plan to kill its ENTIRE fleet of Leopard tanks and Cougar helicopters.  Is it me or might I owe the Brits an apology.  As draconian as there cuts have been (and I'm convinced that they went too far...killing the Joint Harrier Force...the Ark Royal...basically giving away a new LSD...) it seems that other Western European countries are ready to go even further.  Read it and wonder.

Dutch Army to Sell All Leopards and Cougars Army to Sell All Leopards and Cougars

THE HAGUE, 08/04/11 - The cabinet is virtually certain to announce enormous cutbacks at defence today. According to a leaked draft version of the measures, 12,000 jobs and complete army units will disappear. Defence Minister Hans Hillen already announced permanent budget cuts of 1 billion euros per year earlier. The cabinet already considered the far-reaching cutbacks last week. The decision was however postponed and will likely be made today. Public broadcaster NOS has already obtained the plans. It says that all 60 Leopard tanks will be divested. The 17 Cougar helicopters are also to go, as well as four of the 10 mine-sweepers. At least one-third of the 86 F-16s will also be sold. Some 12,300 jobs will disappear. Around 6,000 soldiers will face forced redundancies. NOS has not yet discovered where the blows will actually fall. The unions are furious and derisive. Bigger missions such as that in Uruzgan - four years, 2,000 personnel - will no longer be possible in the future, says ACOM chairman Kleian. "The Netherlands will have a Belgian armed forces. Flying now and then. And if there is money and petrol, then we will do a trick." According to defence sources, the Apache helicopters and Bushmaster heavy armoured vehicles will take over the tasks of the Leopards. The Netherlands can also step up European partnership, for example with Germany. But for this, there appears to be more willingness within the Netherlands than outside it. The Netherlands and Germany do already have a combined army unit. Allies are however hesitant about awarding full airforce or army tasks to a specific country. One in seven of the military must fear for their jobs. Defence currently employs nearly 69,000 people, including 48,300 military. Hillen will sharply prune the number of officers. Generals will also not escape the cutbacks. A sour detail for the military who are virtually on the street is that the cabinet will likely also approve the purchase of a second F35 JSF test aircraft today. This US fighter aircraft is to replace the F-16s. The investment will cost many billions.

The only good news in this mess is that they're going to buy the second F-35.  Still despite what many think...I'd rather see a balanced, effective force rather than one that is so (evidently the future) tilted toward air power.

LVTP-5

Below are pics of the old Corps LVTP-5.  They're courtesy of SGT GRIT website.  One thing to notice is that in several of the pics the Landing Vehicles appear to be launched while the LSD is moving at flank speed.  Its rarely if ever done today.  If anyone can provide information on that bit, I'd surely appreciate it.

This is the pic that has me suspecting that the ship is moving at flank speed.  I can't tell if the LVTP is approaching or leaving the well deck but even with 'some' distance from the ship, its still being influenced by the ships wake.

Peace time training...

The Navy is reporting that two Aviators died in a plane crash today.  My heart and prayers go out to the families.  The military in general and the Marine Corps in particular is a curious place.

Its one of the few jobs in America where just preparing to do your job can get you killed.

In the Marines at least, its understood that the nation will call you to war, will ask you to risk it all and you or someone you know might not make it back.  That comes with being in the machine.

Whats hard and little understood is that training deaths happen all the time.  They're usually stunning, unexpected and a bigger blow to a unit than war time deaths. 

So to the commenter "Wing Wife" I follow your lead...God Bless these guys.  And the Marine that died in the CH-53 crash in Hawaii too.

By From Naval Air Station Lemoore Public Affairs

LEMOORE, Calif. (NNS) -- Two aircrew were killed when their F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft crashed in a field near Naval Air Station Lemoore at 12:08 p.m, April 6.

They were assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 122, based at NAS Lemoore, Calif.

"Our thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends, and shipmates of the aircrew," said Capt. James Knapp, commanding officer, Naval Air Station Lemoore. "An investigation is being conducted to determine the cause of the mishap."

The aircrew was conducting routine flight training at the time of the mishap.

The incident occurred approximately one-half mile west of the installation's property line on private farm land located in Fresno County.

The cause of the mishap is under investigation.

Identities of the deceased will not be released until after notification of their next of kin.

Like taking candy from a baby!

Jonathan (thanks Bud!) sent me this article from defense-aerospace.com regarding the Australian purchase of the Largis Bay.

Suffice it to say that the Aussie's have gotten a steal of a deal.  In one 'cheap' (think about it...this ship is the cost of a brand new F-15), well conceived purchase, they've doubled their amphibious capability...and with two Canberra Class LHD's coming online they're becoming a major player in the Pacific (as if they weren't already).

The only thing left to do is form a Marine Corps!  Read the whole thing but this is the gist of the article...

Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced that Australia has been successful in its bid to acquire the United Kingdom’s Bay Class amphibious ship Largs Bay.

The Government has previously announced that it had asked Defence to develop new and comprehensive options to ensure transition to Australia’s Canberra Class amphibious Landing Helicopter Dock ships, which become operational from 2014, including the lease or purchase of a Bay Class Ship from the UK Government.

Today, the Government is confirming that Australia has been successful in its bid to acquire a Bay Class ship, Largs Bay.

Largs Bay is a Landing Ship Dock (LSD) which was commissioned into service in 2006. It became surplus to United Kingdom (UK) requirements as a result of the UK Government’s 2010 Defence Strategic Review.

The ship weighs 16,000 tonnes. It is 176 metres long and 26 metres wide. Its flight deck has room for two large helicopters and can also carry around 150 light trucks and 350 troops. Its cargo capacity is the equivalent of the Royal Australian Navy’s entire amphibious fleet.

Largs Bay is a proven capability having provided humanitarian relief as part of the international response to the Haiti earthquake in 2010.

Largs Bay will help ensure that the Royal Australian Navy has the amphibious capability it needs for operation and humanitarian support in our region in the period leading up to the arrival of the Landing Helicopter Dock Ships.

The ship has been acquired for £65 million (approximately $100 million).

F-35C on the catapult.

Navy F-35 flight test aircraft CF-1 approaches the TC-7 catapult at Naval Air Station Patuxent River March 22. With U.S. Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Matt "Opie" Taylor at the controls, CF-1 completed functional checks and performed the first test hookup of the F-35C to the catapult.

Navy F-35 flight test aircraft CF-1 approaches the TC-7 catapult at Naval Air Station Patuxent River March 22. With U.S. Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Matt "Opie" Taylor at the controls, CF-1 completed functional checks and performed the first test hookup of the F-35C to the catapult.

The US is vital to NATO...NATO is NOT vital to the US.

A disturbing story for my European readers from the Guardian...

Nato lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign

US withdrawal of attack planes puts pressure on European countries, especially France, to offer more strike capability

Nato is running short of attack aircraft for its bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi only days after taking command of the Libyan mission from a coalition led by the US, France and Britain.
David Cameron has pledged four more British Tornado jets on top of eight already being used for the air strikes. But pressure is growing for other European countries, especially France, to offer more after the Americans withdrew their attack aircraft from the campaign on Monday.
"We will need more strike capability," a Nato official said.
Since the French launched the first raids on Libya 16 days ago, the coalition and Nato have destroyed around 30% of Gaddafi's military capacity, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, the Canadian officer leading the air campaign, told Nato ambassadors.
But attempts to "degrade" the Libyan leader's firepower further were being complicated by a shift in tactics by Gaddafi, said Brigadier General Marc van Uhm, a senior Nato military planner.
"They are using light vehicles and trucks to transport," while hiding tanks and heavy weapons, he said.
"We try to identify where those heavy assets are, because we have seen they have chosen to hide themselves into urban areas to prevent being targeted, even using human shields."
Nato officials insisted the pace of the air operations was being maintained. But it has emerged that the US and the French, who have been the two biggest military players until now, are retaining national control over substantial military forces in the Mediterranean and refusing to submit them to Nato authority.

The French have the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, two escorting frigates and 16 fighter aircraft, none of which are under the Nato command and control which was announced last Thursday.

Until last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy was the loudest opponent of handing over the operations to Nato control. Nonetheless, the French are not only taking part in the Nato campaign, but are the biggest non-US contributors, with 33 aircraft, double Britain's 17. Not all of these are strike aircraft.

Until Monday, the Americans had performed most of the attacks on ground targets, with the French executing around a quarter and the British around a 10th. Given the US retreat, Nato is seeking to fill the gap, but only the British have pledged more.
"We're very happy that one country decided to bring in more assets," said Van Uhm.
When Nato took over from the coalition it was stressed that it had assumed "sole command and control" of all air operations.
However, countries are dipping in and out of Nato command, withdrawing "air assets" for national operations before returning them to alliance control.
"It's pretty clear that Nato is in command. Nato is in the lead," said Van Uhm. "There are assets under national control in the area. But General Bouchard is commanding what Nato does ... You could say nothing is happening without Nato knowing."
The general stressed that no air strikes on ground targets in Libya had taken place outside Nato's command.
Six countries are believed to be engaged in the bombing campaign – France, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Belgium, and Norway – with many others involved in policing an arms embargo and enforcing a no-fly zone.
Gaddafi's air force had been grounded, Van Uhm said.
In London, the Ministry of Defence said RAF aircraft had struck targets in Libya on each of the past three days.
Tornado GR4 ground attack planes, flying from the Italian airbase of Gioia del Colle, hit a battle tank and two surface-to-air missile launchers near Sirte on Monday when they launched three anti-armour Brimstone missiles. The previous day, they fired Paveway IV bombs and Brimstone missiles to target a group of 10 armoured vehicles south of Sirte.
On Saturday, they fired Paveway IV missiles at two tanks in Sirte and also hit "several small ground attack aircraft" on an airfield near Misrata, the MoD said.
Two of the 10 Eurofighter/Typhoons based in Italy have returned to the UK. The Typhoons are not equipped to conduct ground attack operations.

 So much for NATO.

Stick a fork in it.  For all intents and purposes, this alliance is the 'walking dead'...Perhaps even more disturbing for Europe is the understanding that at present levels even a limited air war appears to be beyond its capability to wage independently.

Pic of the day. April 5, 2011.

F-35C CF-1 completes Flight 44 on 1 April 2011.  Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson was the pilot.

I couldn't disagree more.

Cpl. Chad Wade and his wife during happier times..via Stars and Stripes.com

Battle Rattle has an article today that bothers me a great deal.  Read the whole thing but here are a few tidbits.

For another reminder of that, we need to look no farther than the story of Cpl. Chad Wade, a member of 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines, out of Camp Pendleton, Calif. He was killed by an improvised explosive device while on patrol Dec. 1, and four months later, the grief shared by his friends and family continue to spill out in new and painful ways.

then this...

No matter how well intentioned military journalists are, some of their work will sting families who don’t deserve additional pain. There’s no joy in that.
However, failing to publish those painful stories and take on those scary assignments will only leave the rest of our country in the dark about a fight directly involving 100,000 U.S. service members each day. It must be done.
This is a harsh, cold reality of war. I don’t like it, and I’m sure you don’t, either.

Dan Lamothe is trying to have it both ways and it annoys me to no end.  This guy had the honor of being embedded with US Marines...writes about the agony of losing a member of the unit and then proclaims that this is the harsh, cold reality of war and isn't talking about the combat itself but his interpretation of what needs to be reported?  Ernie Pyle must be turning in his grave.

Modern journalist have taken their 'art' too far.  The details of how a young man died and relating that to their families is just a step too far in my opinion.  To describe not only in words but also in pictures the suffering of a dying man...to record the frantic efforts of his buddies...to record for time immortal the pain and suffering of his comrades while they mourn his death isn't necessary.

Its ghoulish.

Its morbid.

It just shouldn't be.

But more importantly than my feelings about it is how the wives and mothers must feel.  Watching the son you raised in pain...moments before his death or soon after must be chilling and hearbreaking.  Watching the man you loved and wanted to spend your life with broken, bruised and dying must be like repeating the sorrow of being told that he died again and again and again.

Political correctness almost always protects the indefensible.  Its seems like the 1st amendment is being used to do the same.  Its time for the Department of Defense to grow a pair and start censoring news reports and photos.  Our military families deserve better.

Remember this.  Police departments that suffer officers killed in the line of duty often hide the fallen from the prying eyes of photographers cameras.    The news media often self-censors images of civilians that are dead or dying.  Only the military is not given the same respect.

And this from a man that we allowed to embed with our units.  Shameful.

F-35 STOVL Engine News.

via William (thanks...much appreciated!) from Defense Daily...

F-35 STOVL Engine Challenges Surmountable By Year's End Manufacturer Says
By Marina Malenic

      WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.--The manufacturer of an engine that powers
a jump-jet version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is confident that
engineering challenges facing the engine will be resolved this year.
      "By the end of 2011, no one will be talking about difficulties
with this engine," Warren Boley, the head of Pratt & Whitney's military
engine business, told Defense Daily in a March 31 interview.
      Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies [UTX], builds
the F135 engine that powers all three variants of the F-35--a
conventional variant for the Air Force; a short take-off and vertical
landing (STOVL) variant for the Marine Corps; and a carrier variant for
the Navy. Lockheed Martin [LMT] is developing the airplane.
      Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a
"probation" period for the STOVL variant, which has encountered more
developmental challenges than the other two, simpler models (Defense
Daily, Jan. 7). The Marines have said they need the STOVL variant to
replace the 25-year-old AV-B Harrier, which is used when landing on
amphibious warfare vessels and improvised airstrips.
      Boley said his company can complete all necessary improvements
to the engine by the third quarter of fiscal 2011.
      "If there are still problems at that time, I know they won't be
with the engine," he said. He added that he does not have "visibility"
into the avionics or any other airframe-specific problems that Lockheed
Martin may be having.
      "With the engine, we are dealing purely with application
engineering at this point," he added. "Tech development is complete."
      Meanwhile, Pratt & Whitney is preparing to submit a pricing
proposal for the sixth low-rate initial production (LRIP) batch of
F135s to the Pentagon by the end of the month. According to United
Technologies CEO David Hess, the company was able to provide a 16
percent cost cut on LRIP 6 and is on track to keep reducing costs with
each follow-on production batch by 13 percent.
      Earlier this year, executives from the company said they would
require an additional $1 billion to add flight-test engines and related
support to the program after Gates restructured the F-35 program as a
whole. An extended development timeline and additional flight testing
will likely mean that four to six flight-test engines will be added to
the current fleet of 18, according to Boley.
      He added that about $600 million to $700 million of the $1
billion would be flight-test costs, while the remainder accounts for
incremental "product improvement" demanded by the F-35 Joint Program
Office following a technical baseline review completed earlier this
year. Most of those improvements relate to maintainability and field
support, according to Boley.

This must be repeated...shouted to the roof tops and broadcast to all interested parties.

THE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE A 16 PERCENT COST CUT ON LRIP 6 AND IS ON TRACK TO KEEP REDUCING COSTS WITH EACH FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION BATCH BY 13 PERCENT!

I love it when a plan comes together.

First hand tour of the LCS-2.

Lee sent me this evaluation of the LCS-2 that I wanted to share.  Seems as if he shares my initial impressions.  The LCS-2, despite its limitations, has the potential to be much more than the sum of its parts.

If the USMC can develop mission modules designed for Infantry Companies with an eye toward mini-MEU capabilities then the idea of dispersed operations at sea become a reality. 

The idea of Company Landing Teams via the LCS is nothing short of brilliant.

But before I get ahead of myself here's his review.

Well gents I got onboard the second LCS on Friday 26 Feb.  The an officer new to the ship (Blue/Gold crewing) led the group, he did not have all the type experience which the other crew had.  I tagged along with a group of medical type sailors from local shore commands.  The contractors were weight testing the after gantry aka twin boom lift system so I did not get to ask much about it.  Did not get into ICC2 which is the enclosed CIC space.  Did not get into engineroom not offered.  Was NOT allowed to photograph the flight deck because Fire Scout UAV was on it?  I will start from bow and go aft  These are my deckplate impressions.  I will go into programmatic and operational matters SEPCOR.

 

The first and overlying observation is the LCS-2 is MUCH larger than LCS-2 (which I got on last year).  All the working spaces, passageways, ladders, overheads – everything is bigger.  While the interior layout amazed some sailors in the tour group, it seemed conventional for some used to civilian crewed T-ships.  Flight deck is huge by comparison to Perry and wider than DDGs.  See the deck problem below.  Here are my other observations

 

The height above water of the Mk110 gun is notable especially when compared to Burke DDG that the Independence was bow on to.  I would also assume that it keeps the mount somewhat drier from seas?   The soft patch on foredeck behind the gun is big.  I was told that there is a large space under it.  The new missile system could certainly be changed out for something bigger? (Topic of any earlier discussion).

 

The view from the bridge is exceptional (about a 280 deg view), but there are NO bridge wings. There are many cameras installed onboard for both internal and external viewing with large displays in several positions on the bridge.  There are two roll-down windows to look out for during UNREPs (sort of like hanging out a truck’s window while driving?~).  There is a removable pilot platform which apparently is disliked?

 

The bridge is laid out well, but smaller than the T-AGS60 class which I spent a lot of time on.  On the aft part of the bridge is ICC-1 which is essentially a mini-CIC cordoned off only by a black-out curtain.    There are 3 “operator seats” tight together on the bridge centerline with a chartable (no full paper portfolio onboard just harbor charts) to port and the CO’s chair to stbd with large display panels in front of all chairs.  Ship has no conventional helm being steered by joystick.  While there were peloruses on the bridge, apparently traditional fixes were only done as backup?   Windows had rounded corners and were deep set in structural frames.  Engineroom monitoring is done by the Readiness officer seated to left of Conning officer.   Then engineroom is unmanned with two roving patrols and full monitoring on the bridge.

 

Tour went down to centerline passageway which doubled as cafeteria food line.  Wardroom, CPO and crews mess rooms were along it.  Hospital aka sickbay also there was aft.  Staterooms had bunks for 74 (crew + air det + 1 mission team) and were installed 1, 2 or 4 person arrangements depending on rank/rate.  We were told that the ship bunks had not filled up during normal operations to date, but when more than one mission module was onboard a habitability module would be added on the mission deck.

 

Can you believe that everyone onboard has to bus and clean their own dishes?  While this may be egalitarian, it certainly seems like a poor use of rather limited manpower.  The galley crew was small.  I spoke with the LPO and it would appear the galley arrangement, crewing and messing are, once again, similar to T-AGS 60 Pathfinders (which has only two mess rooms and stewards to serve/cleanup).  I would suggest that someone go over and look at how an MSC ship operates for a better food service arrangement.  This is even more important since the galley staff is small and must be augmented by crewmembers at times since the cooks are assigned extras duties outside foodservice.  This is partially because there are NO E-4 or below in the crew.

 

The hangar and mission deck (in fact most interior surfaces) have some form of metal foil wrapping & insulation on them.  It everywhere! The hangar has room for two H-60s.   Apparently they have only operated one aircraft at a time so far.  Hopefully the Navy will test for both H60 and two Fire Scouts which would be a really effective “fire team”.  The Fire Scout reps onboard said that the UAV had been operated out to about 110 nmi from ship and currently flys for over 6 hrs, but when test gear is removed and a new model enters service (in a year!?) flight time could be up to 8 hours.  One UAV had a 6 person test team.  They thought that 2 UAVs could be operated by 6 buy that is TBD.

 

Now comes the weird parts.  While the Fire Scout was landed on a large landing platform about 10 ft square~ that apparently is used for shipment and securing purposes.   BUT the flight deck itself was NOT rated for H-53s?!   On a ship whose dry goods/provisions are expected to delivered by VERTREP, and where other cargo like mission modules may be larger than an H60 capacity, why in the world should that big deck be so restricted?   It also means that support of large USMC lifts may not be feasible.  A bad design decision which needs to be corrected.  (subsequent discussions have indicated that the deck can be strengthened to accept an MH-53)

 

That leads me to another design flaw which I think is unacceptable.  There is an elevator from the hangar (stbd side long.) deck to the mission deck which is NOT capable of lifting anything over 6000 lbs.  The elevator is about the dimension of a TEU container.  Why in the world the ship is so restricted from moving cargo/gear between main deck and mission deck is beyond me?  So in essence nothing large/heavy can be landed and lowered below or vice versa?  Again a dumb design and certainly part of this “box” which needs correction.  A shipalt should be considered (if any changes are being allowed)?

 

Dropping down to the mission deck.  A couple of features stand out.  First there are three longitudinal “bays” for modules with structural columns in-between.  This is a typical configuration of Austal HSVs. There is a straddle loader for moving containers and boats etc around the deck.  A rather large piece of MHE, but seemingly flexible.   I could not get to see how the containers onboard were secured, but both ISO sockets and raised D-rings were installed in the mission deck.

 

The overhead gantry, aka twin boom lift system, was well into the overhead on the overhead aft to midships.  The officer said that boats could be launched at 5 to 8 knots easily, but he had not launched more than one type boat.  The ship had a Navy Standard 11 meter RHIB onboard for utility and testing support.  This ship needs to be tested with a full boat det onboard to prove capacity for boats, spares and crews.  Operating one boat is a bare minimum capability. NECC/NSW unit support should be anticipated.  There was a rescue boat outside the skin to port launched by at SLAD.

 

The sideport ramp is very substantial and can support a full ISO 20 ft container on a forklift truck.  I would say the mission deck is a vast improvement over the LCS-1 design (which was rusted from water intrusion and had an inoperable smaller ramp).

 

From an operational viewpoint, the ship was a little hard to judge.  The tour time did not allow for more discussions about weapons or sensors.  I was told there was relatively new ROC/POE, but the CONOPS was several years old.   The lack of installed weapons was obvious.  One medium caliber gun and SeaRam plus small arms.  There was a comment that these ships are “not expected to conduct offensive operations like a conventional warship”.  The comment was amazing, but since there was a tour group, I did not press the point.

 

The two 30mm guns were not expected until later as that was a different mission?!  To date the ship had been used/tested for one mission at a time and that was mainly MIW.   It would appear that while an air det (composition?) was expected as SOP, ALL other mission modules were on a one at a time only basis?  This may be testing peculiarity?   I submit that an air det (1 H60 + 2 UAV) and SUW mission module should be minimum for most operations,  but of course that is debatable.  OT&E was still going on, final trials and PSA had not been completed.  I did not discuss engine problems.  The ship is reportedly very maneuverable inport.

 

I obviously could have gone back to discuss more topics, but the crew was busy preparing for u/w ops next week.  Some other info noted:  The whole crew is cross trained, seems like every sailor had a collateral duty?  I did not discuss DC/FF.  Survivability was not discussed. There are lots more details that need to be looked at and the final OT&E report should be scrutinized for problems.

 

The ship is big, it has potential, I am very skeptical of its naval warfare capabilities especially in the dangerous green waters

 

For now, I think the characterization some have used before is applicable: 

 

LCS-2 has potential but for now it is a sub-optimal platform.  It must be improved up front.  BUTI suspect the Navy has cut a no change order deal for the dual buy, so improvements won’t be seen for years to come??

 

Lee