Okay, so I was looking at the pics of the USS Santa Barbara and USS Tulsa from when they were in Malaysia last week and something stood out to me that I haven't seen anyone address, either here or elsewhere.These are LCS equipped with the MCM MP, not the SUW MP. We know this, its been confirmed a fair number of times. But these very clearly have the NSM box launchers fore of the superstructure. So then I went back and looked at those pics of when the USS Canberra escorted the 4 retiring Avengers out of the Gulf. Guess what, it was there the whole time.What this means is apparently they are putting the NSMs on all LCS irregardless of MP. Well, let me walk that back slightly: they are putting them on all Independences it seems. I haven't seen any recent pics of a Freedom; does anybody have any?
yeah
>>65010181>What this means is apparently they are putting the NSMs on all LCS irregardless of MP. The NSM is part of the Lethality and Survivability upgrade package, not a specific mission package. All of the LCSes are receiving the upgrade during their scheduled maintenance.
>>65010275People have made that argument in the past, but others insisted it was just part of SUW. Given how they never would give a clear answer on which ships would get it or not, this makes it pretty important information to finally confirm (as much as we can), that they are all getting it.Again, with the possible aside of the Freedoms. I still would like to see recent photos of them.
>>65010291I don't know what you're talking about, NSM was never part of any mission package and the launchers aren't mounted in a place where they would interfere with the mission modules. All of the Independence class will be receiving the L&S upgrade, and integration has been performed for the Freedom class but the Navy hasn't yet committed to upgrading them.
>>65010303>I don't know what you're talking aboutYou don't understand the concept of people coming on /k/ and saying things that are wrong? How new are you?
>>65010250>>65010263>>65010300Based yeah posters
>>65010943yeah
Noted with thanks
>>65010181And if you look closely, you can see that all the TBs are equipped with NWL, BGC, QRS, and ASS, regardless of NGER status and even in spite of KKK regulation! It's astonishing!
>>65011161Are you alright?All of those acronyms are pretty basic ones. Only one remotely niche is “MP” for mission package. Yell at OP if you want, but don’t out yourself as a retard in the process.
>>65011470>>NGER…KKK> don’t out yourself as a retard in the process.Task difficulty level: Impossible for his ilk.
>>65011535And also apparently your reading comp is busted. Pearls before swine.
>>65010943yup.
>>65010181they're a cool looking ship and i am sick of pretending otherwise.
Why does posting about this ship make the shills seethe so much? Like, I think its pretty cool, but in the end it isn't really that impressive or important. This level of energy would be better served aimed at the Ford-class or the Burkes.
>>65012796It was kinda a train-wreck of a program from the beginning, and those of us who have followed it the whole time get easily offended over it. You'd get a similar reaction if you asked people who remember FCS, or AAAV, or Land Warrior/Nett Warrior/Future Warrior/etc. For that matter, ZumZum falls into the same category, and for a more contemporary example, look no further than LSAT/CTSAS/NGSW, and how we still howl over that fiasco. Heck, we still argue over JSF and the Ford class, despite the former getting back on track (at least until TR-3 reared its ugly head), and the latter being able to operate its catapults and arresting gear (the AAG, I believe, was actually the bigger problem of the two).
>>65012939It's funny that you bring up the F-35, since that's another example of Lockheed fucking up what should have been a successful program.>>65012796There's nothing wrong with the Ford. Lead ships will always have issues to work out, that's the point of concurrent acquisition. Some things you just have to build and see what problems crop up. There's also nothing wrong with Burke except that we're still building them. She was an exceptional ship for her time.
>>65013050Lockheeb may be greedy, but I'm confident if the F35B didn't exist it would be significantly cheaper.
>>65013060If the B didn't exist, then there would have been absolutely no reason to have chosen the locksneed over the boing. We would all be better off if Lockheed and Martin had just vaporized themselves off the face of the earth instead of merging.
No one can explain why we need litoral ships.
>>65013050I never said there was anything wrong witht he Ford or Burke. Please, I am begging you, learn to read.
>>65013635To fight in the littorals
>>65013915But why?
>>65013928Because carriers are pretty vulnerable in the littorals and power projection doesn't stop at Guam
>>65013938But they'd be super vulnerable in the littoral zone if they were ever used in contested areas.
>>65013956They'll be less so than a carrierAnd they are a far less valuable targetYou're starting to sound like Congress
>>65013956>ships are vulnerable when used in contested areasGot any more brilliant tactical insights for us, admiral?
>>65013635Because we need small ships to do small ship things. Stop getting hung up on the name.
>>65013635You know how every turdie is saying that infinity bombing will never actually defeat anyone and you need boots on the ground? Litoral ships are the "boots on the ground" of the naval world.
>>65010181okay now I noticed somethingwhy does the first ship have hatches on the back door but the second doesnt?
