Skip to content

New Stiletto Promo Ads

February 22, 2010
tags:



Used by permission from M Ship.

56 Comments leave one →
  1. August 10, 2010 10:53 am

    That’s huge Stiletto… I’m sure pirates gone in 60 seconds…. hehehee

  2. Bill permalink
    February 25, 2010 10:09 am

    D.E.: I’ve requested the particulars on the variants of the Skjold platform that I mentioned…the ones developed to make the platform appeal to a broad range of potential foreign navies for a variety of missions., in contrast to the actual class in the water that is finely honed for a specific coastal defense and littoral denial mission.

    If you want ‘bigger’..I can do that too, but the ‘bigger’ options for OPV/corvette variants we developed were actually based on the larger MCMV SES (54m LO, 350 tons) as the base platform.

    It is perhaps worth noting a bit of the ‘why’ behind the development of numerous alternative designs based on those two exceptional base platforms. The first is obvious: The expansion of the produciton numbers through FMS would have been a ‘plus’ for the small Norwegian Navy acquisition programs. The second is more subtle in nature: Norwegian government restrictions on the ‘export’ of something like what the RNoN version of Skjold is now make the sale of such lethal platofrms nearly impossible except to a very limited number of close allies..so the development of more ‘benign’ and multi-purpose variants was a practical matter too.

  3. D. E. Reddick permalink
    February 24, 2010 8:40 pm

    Larger, more Capable Shield (Skjold) – what could be better, eh? More range, better habitability, and a more extensive offensive weapons fit than that of the current USN LCS-1. Plus, it’s a better phrase for defining the LCS acronym than what’s currently running around in the Caribbean.

    Bill, please do find those characteristics of a Larger, more Capable Skjold (LCS). I think we may need them – badly.

  4. Scott B. permalink
    February 24, 2010 1:51 pm

    Bill said : “I started the ball rolling”

    Excellent !!!

  5. Bill permalink
    February 24, 2010 10:14 am

    “Because, once all is said and done, the long-range variant of Skjold might well be the mythical corvette our host is looking for. ;-)”

    I started the ball rolling…have requested the details from one of the key project leaders that managed the Skjold effort from the Norwegian side (and who I worked for when not working directly for the Norwegian Navy or the shipyard..we worked for all three at various times throughout the 10-year proram..) . We’ll see if he can access his old file boxes faster than I can. ;-)

  6. CBD permalink
    February 24, 2010 7:47 am

    acg,
    The Mk V predated the M80 by more than a decade. The original Mk V had problems, however, and the Mk V.1 Mako was developed using carbon fiber composite technology…which has also been used in many other military craft before the M80. The two developments are unrelated.

    The M80 tried to be stealthy and used carbon fiber tech for weight and signal control benefits, but this was not an innovative move.

  7. Scott B. permalink
    February 24, 2010 6:08 am

    Bill said : “I’ll see what I can pull together ..some boxes have to be hauled out of storage to fully answer your question.”

    You know my soft spot for Skjold, so I’d be delighted to find out what this long-range version might look like, whenever your time permits.

    And heck, this might even be an incentive for Mike to put back the banner with Skjold that was shown for a brief period of time yesterday.

    Because, once all is said and done, the long-range variant of Skjold might well be the mythical corvette our host is looking for. ;-)

  8. Scott B. permalink
    February 24, 2010 6:03 am

    acg said : “The Stiletto is a tech demonstration.”

    I have no problem with Stiletto as long as it remains a tech demonstrator.

    I have no problem with Stiletto as a Mark V replacement (i.e. 20 units), except the USSOCOM decided it ways not the way to go. Hence the $15 million MAKO prototype.

    I have a problem with folks like W. Hughes trying to make it sound like the Navy should buy 500 of these gadgets, which is a complete nonsense, both operationally and financially.

  9. Scott B. permalink
    February 24, 2010 5:51 am

    acg said : “Namely stealth, composites, and hull design to minimize shock transfer to crew-members. And so its no surprise that two years later Naval Special Warfare introduces a new patrol craft that introduces all these new technologies.”

    Except that MAKO uses a different hull design and different composite technology (e.g. Carbon/Epoxy for Stiletto vs Carbon/Kevlar for MAKO).

  10. acg permalink
    February 23, 2010 8:27 pm

    Scott B said: “Unless I got something wrong, one prototype of the all-mighty M80 Stiletto has been in existence for some time now, and has been toyed with by Navy and CG Folks. And the bottom line is this : THEY DO NOT WANT IT !”

    There’s a reason for that too. Its pretty obvious this was always just a prototype to test new technologies. Namely stealth, composites, and hull design to minimize shock transfer to crew-members. And so its no surprise that two years later Naval Special Warfare introduces a new patrol craft that introduces all these new technologies. The Stiletto is a tech demonstration. No more, no less.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_V_Special_Operations_Craft

  11. leesea permalink
    February 23, 2010 5:46 pm

    Oh BTW my 31 ft PBR had more installed weapons than the 80 ft Stiletto does. Of course we couldn’t lift NSW boats, we lifted the SEALS into spots directly. AND one could support a whole PBR RivRon off of one WW2 LST aka AGP. So who needs expensive vessels either M80 or motherships? KISS is the way to go.
    Ok so I am proud to be a Gamewarden~

  12. Bill permalink
    February 23, 2010 5:12 pm

    .”..at nearly 30 knots..”..that should have said.

  13. Bill permalink
    February 23, 2010 5:02 pm

    I’ve been prodded before to pull some of that info out of the achives. Different mission variants were developed for both the Skjold and the larger Oksoy class SES…for slower, long-range variations of the former and for faster (40-knot) shorter range variants of the latter.

    I do recall that the long-range patrol variant of the Skjold design had roughly the same unrefueled range as the existing PCs..but at nearly knots..not 12. ;-)

    I’ll see what I can pull together ..some boxes have to be hauled out of storage to fully answer your question.

  14. Scott B. permalink
    February 23, 2010 4:54 pm

    Bill said : “I’m talking about one built for long range patrol…same platform, different main engines and armament.”

    Could you give some rough specs for this long-range variant ?

    E.g. sprint speed, cruise speed, max. range (@ cruise speed), max. range (@ sprint speed), power installed (diesel ?), armament / payload,…

  15. Scott B. permalink
    February 23, 2010 4:51 pm

    Bill said : “I just argue that the choice has to be made carefully and correctly and not on hype alone.”

    Amen !

  16. Scott B. permalink
    February 23, 2010 4:48 pm

    Mike Burleson said : “How do we know unless we try?”

    Unless I got something wrong, one prototype of the all-mighty M80 Stiletto has been in existence for some time now, and has been toyed with by Navy and CG Folks. And the bottom line is this : THEY DO NOT WANT IT !

    No matter how much the good folks of M Ship Co. would like it to happen, this *sign us a blank check and we’ll see if it works* approach that you’re suggesting isn’t reasonable. At all…

  17. Bill permalink
    February 23, 2010 4:31 pm

    “to chase down pirates or smugglers, riding in ten thousand dollar speed boats! They have nothing else to work with.”

    DEA and USCG have had plenty of experience with their ‘Blue Thunder’ and later Fountain boats in that arena. 100s of thousands of dollars a pop, those. Not a good experience and not a good record…seems that the real world imposes demands on small high-performance boats used constantly that is vastly different than what Mr. Goldchain does when he runs his ‘go fast’ up and down the shoreline once a month.

    I only barely admit that Stiletto is much more than one of those..and certainly not even their equal in rough water capability.

    I do not argue against a need for small fast craft..I just argue that the choice has to be made carefully and correctly and not on hype alone.

  18. Mike Burleson permalink*
    February 23, 2010 4:21 pm

    Scott said “I’m sorry : it simply doesn’t hold water !”

    How do we know unless we try? No one in the Navy is trying anything except to apply last century techniques to modern problems. They say they want to focus on the Green/Brown Water, but they don’t want to cut any large battleship programs to pay for it. If they had smaller, cheaper vessels doing the everyday presence stuff, they might realize they have enough blue water battleship types, really, more than enough. So realistically, you aren’t “gutting” the blue water fleet, but building an adequate, more affordable force. Right now, they must use their super Aegis cruisers to chase down pirates or smugglers, riding in ten thousand dollar speed boats! They have nothing else to work with.

    I’d just like to see some common sense return to procurement, and a balanced fleet. Maybe if I repeat it enough, someone will pay attention. I have in on good authority they are, but it may be another generation before the right people get into a place of leadership to effect change.

  19. Bill permalink
    February 23, 2010 4:05 pm

    “The Skjold seems to fit into that category. It seems intended for defensive littoral warfare, operating out of a cave drilled into the side a fjord somewhere, not for overseas deployment.

    That is not the case at all. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any platform of similar length (meaning a lot of ‘other’ patrol and small corvette vesels) that could perform nearly as well in terms of speed v. power, range and seakeeping/crew habitability. I’m talking of course not about the unique Norwegian production variant..I’m talking about one built for long range patrol…same platform, different main engines and armament.

    Skjold’s do not need lift support..they need refueling support only, to deploy anywhere. They would indeed be a challenge to lift though…at least with anything USN has.

  20. D. E. Reddick permalink
    February 23, 2010 3:56 pm

    Mike,

    Nice choice in using a Skjold class coastal corvette for a new banner logo of New Wars. However, you should have the banner text of “New Wars” placed to the left so that it’s leading the warship where it should be headed, rather than partially obscuring the vessel. Further, the text should be in a demonstrative color, rather than haze gray. Perhaps dark blood-red auburn… Oh, and you need better anti-aliasing for that text – it has pixelated edges.

  21. Scott B. permalink
    February 23, 2010 3:43 pm

    Steve Coltman said : “The Absalon is a combat vessel in its own right so could perform a mission and act as a mothership for a few corvettes. What do people think?”

    There’s no need for the corvette when you have an ABSALON.

  22. Steve Coltman permalink
    February 23, 2010 3:18 pm

    This discussion is becoming a little unfocussed it seems. Some issues need to be defined. First is how small can a vessel be and still self-deploy around the world? MCMVs are typically 800 tonnes and they are expected to proceed wherever needed under their own power. Other vessels, in contrast, seem small enough to be carried (in the well of a LPD perhaps?) but there must be some inconvenient size that is too large to be easily carried yet to small to self-deploy. The Skjold seems to fit into that category. It seems intended for defensive littoral warfare, operating out of a cave drilled into the side a fjord somewhere, not for overseas deployment.
    Even if a ship, eg a corvette, is big enough to self-deploy it must be true that a corvette has limited self-sufficiency, in terms of self-maintenance & repair and medical facilities, so a group of them would need some kind of support. But is this not also true of a squadron of MCMVs deploying overseas? So this is not a new problem. So far as a ‘mothership’ is concerned, of course the cost of such a vessel needs to be factored in, as too a tanker of some kind (unless one ship doubles up these roles). I can see how a big amphib. like a LPD could act as a mothership, or an Absalon, but I cannot see the LCS as one, more likely it would need one itself surely? It would be easier to justify having big amphibs if there was some other role they could perform, other than amphibious assaults once every half-century. The Absalon is a combat vessel in its own right so could perform a mission and act as a mothership for a few corvettes. What do people think?

  23. Bill permalink
    February 23, 2010 1:46 pm

    ““It is widely believed, incorrectly, that waters close to the land are sheltered and so are safer, but even in the English Channel high winds and seas are not uncommon.”

    Hooo wee..that is something I can vouch for, having spent far too many days at sea running cross-channel in vessels one heack of a lot bigger than a Stiletto that could not manage those sea conditions on many a day.

    My ‘small fast craft’ expereince is based heavily on having one heck of a lot of ‘sea time’ under my belt, running delivery voyages with small fast ferries literally the world over. By defnition (and class restriction), we operated entirely in the littoral environment to make those voyages. Based simply on that experience alone, ( the many mishaps could fill a book, but over the years at least three vessels were destroyed on those voyages and many others badly damaged) I am more than convinced by direct experience t and observation that anything smaller than about 120′ LOA is simply going to be a disaster in terms of operability and, particularly, crew habitability, if expected to be a ‘peristent and effective presence’ in that sea environment.

    In fact, the 120′ vessels I use as the ‘bottom line LOA’ were superbly capable Norwegian SES ferries, with comfy crew accomodations and with speed, range and seakeeping performance that makes the Stiletto look silly by comparison…there are many vessels of 120′ LOA that would never manage the seas at speed that the Cirrus SES boats could.

    If a mission(s) exists that closely resembles how our PTs were operated in WWII…with equipped forward support bases any where we wanted/needed them and always within short miles from the threat and operating area..then hey..buy some Stilettos and have at it. But please..pretending that thing will ever perform as some kind of wide-area patrol craft with any endurance and a happy crew..or supplant LCS..is nonsense.

  24. Scott B. permalink
    February 23, 2010 11:22 am

    Mike Burleson said : “Scott, we are doing forward basing now.”

    In the current situation, forward basing is 13 small fries (5 PCs and 8 MCMs) and 2 locations (Manama in Bahrein and Sasebo in Japan) out of a pool of 27 (13 PCs and A4 MCMs) or so.

    Your plan (as recently described here and there) is different from the current situation by a fair order of magnitude, since after gutting most of the existing surface fleet, it involves injecting something like 400 to 600 small fries.

    Now unless you intend to have only 13 of these forward based as is the case currently, having 1/3 of this massive flotilla deployed overseas is going to be a completely different challenge.

    Which brings us to the next point : in the very Burlesonian poster by M Ship Co., what I can see in terms of deployment locations is this :

    * Central America : Colombia, El Salvador, Haïti, Caribbean
    * South East Asia : Indonesia, Malacca Straits, Philippines, Singapore
    * North East Asia : Taiwan, South Korea, Guam
    * Africa : West Africa, Somalia

    Then there is one in the Med, one in India, one in the Persian Gulf, and a couple doing GWOT thingies in undisclosed locations.

    What this tells me is that to come even close to this marketing vision, you’ll need 1) a lot more forward bases capable of supporting the small fries, and 2) a lot more support assets than currently available.

    All I am saying is that, every time someone raises point 1), the only answer is : we’re doing it right now. I can’t recall one instance where the actual cost of having such a tremendously expanded network of overseas bases was actually factored into the *small is beautiful* equation.

    Furthermore, what I am saying is that, every time someone raises point 2), the only answer is : *Mothership*. Everytime there’s a problem, the mythical *mothership* is supposed to come to the rescue and solve it : heavy lift, refuel, repair, rearm, hotel services, aviation. And, at the same time, I can’t recall one instance where the cost of having such a mythical *mothership* was actually factored into the *small is beautiful* equation. Even worse, I’ve asked many times to be shown one of these mythical mothership that can do it all, and never saw one.

    No offense intended, Mike, you know how much I like you, but your plan is not serious and merely starting a new entry every week to repeat the exact same thing without ever getting into the details won’t make your case look better : you’re merely re-booting your system, hoping the numerous bugs will disappear.

    I’m sorry : it simply doesn’t hold water !

  25. B.Smitty permalink
    February 23, 2010 10:57 am

    Mike,

    Cyclones have a 2-3000nm range and up to 10 days of endurance. It makes a lot more sense to forward base these, as they have some regional reach.

  26. Chris Stefan permalink
    February 23, 2010 10:33 am

    Hmm, maybe a M ship design isn’t the answer, but the point still stands that one can buy quite a mix of Skjold, Absalon, Visby, and Cyclones or more modern designs for what a handful of LCS is going to cost. For that matter one could probably build some frigates too as long as you kept everything off the shelf and avoided overloading the hull or gold plating everything.

    Of course one issue is crewing all of the ships, the crew counts drive operating costs, and keeping everyone paid, trained, and combat ready isn’t cheap.

  27. Mike Burleson permalink*
    February 23, 2010 9:32 am

    Scott, we are doing forward basing now. We do it all in the time, including the PC Cyclones based in the Gulf. I didn’t just make this up to justify Stiletto. This is standard Navy practice.

  28. Scott B. permalink
    February 23, 2010 7:23 am

    Mike Burleson said : ” But a focused mission ship like Stiletto will of necessity be based in or near the Green and Brown water areas, where it can be on call.”

    You’d still need support assets (or an awful lot of forward bases !) to compensate for the somewhat pathetic range of Stiletto. This is something you NEVER factor into the *small is beautiful* equation. Why ?

    On the seakeeping side of the problem, you continue to proclaim that seakeeping qualities don’t matter when operating in the littorals (which you never precisely define).

    And yet again, it’s not like we have never discussed this subject on the blog in the past, is it ?

    At the risk of repeating myself again and again and again, here is what the much regretted D.K. Brown pointed out so many times, for instance in his “Future British Surface Fleet” (p.56) :

    “It is widely believed, incorrectly, that waters close to the land are sheltered and so are safer, but even in the English Channel high winds and seas are not uncommon.

    The 50-year wave height is 20 meters almost to the Isle of Wight, with a corresponding wind speed of 30 m/s.

    Many inshore disasters have shown the danger of underestimating coastal areas, such as the breaking in half of the French torpedo Boat Branlebas off Dartmouth in World War II.”

  29. Scott B. permalink
    February 23, 2010 7:14 am

    Mike Burleson said : “Forward basing is a must for small craft.”

    In the real world, there’s no free lunch : forward basing isn’t cheap, is very sensitive to geopolitical fluctuations, and actually increases your strategic vulnerability.

  30. Scott B. permalink
    February 23, 2010 7:11 am

    Mike Burleson said : “When you add more capability in a warship, naturally you see a rise in cost, hull size, plus a reduction in the numbers purchased.”

    We’ve been having this conversation for months and it’s like you keep refusing to listen every time and come back as if no discussion ever took place.

    Now, there are more than enough pricepoints in your fast-growing Warship Costs Section for you to compare ABSALON with any OPV, corvette or FAC you want from a cost POV.

    As for your point of ABSALON becoming yet another LCS, it’s pure ideological rhetoric, i.e. worthless.

    You really have to emancipate yourself from the *small is beautiful* fallacy and start to THINK BIG, not small.

  31. Mike Burleson permalink*
    February 23, 2010 6:47 am

    When you add more capability in a warship, naturally you see a rise in cost, hull size, plus a reduction in the numbers purchased. Even with capability you still need numbers for a fleet to reach its full potential, which is where small cheap warships like Stiletto, like corvettes, and OPVs, etc come in.

    I am not out to destroy the need for ships like Absalon, Scott, but wish it to see it find its true purpose with the fleet, unlike the admirals who think “one ship fits all”. Then you get anachronisms like LCS, a mediocre platform with a gold plate price. They would do the same thing with Absalon if you don’t show them you also need focused missions ships to have a truly balanced fleet.

  32. Mike Burleson permalink*
    February 23, 2010 6:39 am

    Forward basing is a must for small craft. For a Blue Water vessel like LCS, you never know where it will be. But a focused mission ship like Stiletto will of necessity be based in or near the Green and Brown water areas, where it can be on call.

    I agree its abilities are limited, but isn’t that the point of littoral warfare? Trying to do everything and nothing well is shrinking our fleet even as it rises in cost.

  33. Scott B. permalink
    February 23, 2010 6:34 am

    Less than a week ago, Bill posted some interested comments on the much-touted Stiletto :

    “Let me know when the lift to carry and continuously support 40 Stilletos ..and the Stilletos themselves..are constituted as a coherent fighting unit. And then explain to me why we want a swarm of small rough-riding boats delivered and supported like that in an open sea area that extends over 1000 miles offshore…”

    Can some of the points Bill raised get an answer ? Because they sure deserve one.

  34. Scott B. permalink
    February 23, 2010 6:27 am

    Scott B. said : “Yes, but with the support of a *mothership*, blah blah blah”

    More on the mythical *mothership* :

    * It’ll have to do the heavy lift for transoceanic deployments.

    * It’ll have to refuel the gas-guzzling Stiletto on a regular basis.

    * It’ll have to do the repair, re-arm and provide much needed hotel services.

    * It’ll have to carry whatever aviation component may not fit on the small fry, e.g. helicopters.

    How much for this Heavy Lift / Tanker / Tender / Aviation *Mothership* ?

    I’d also be curious to find out what it looks like and how many you would want to buy.

  35. Scott B. permalink
    February 23, 2010 6:20 am

    Mike Burleson said : “Range and seakeeping isn’t the big factor as numbers and availability.”

    Range and seakeeping actually have much to do with availability.

    As far as range is concerned, if your favorite small fry cannot get there because it doesn’t have the range, then it’s not going to be avalaible at all.

    As far as seakeeping is concerned, if your favorite small fry cannot put to sea because of its poor seakeeping qualities, then it’s not going to be available at all.

    The bottom line is that platform-centric attributes matter, and that Stiletto, while extraordinarily expensive for what it really is, fails to pass the test by a fair margin.

  36. Mike Burleson permalink*
    February 23, 2010 5:14 am

    ACG said “500 nm range and no blue water capability.”

    Again we are talking about a littoral requirement here. Confusing the two roles is what got us the LCS boondoggle. Range and seakeeping isn’t the big factor as numbers and availability.

  37. leesea permalink
    February 23, 2010 1:28 am

    And if one want a real small combatant to replace the Cyclone PCs there are plenty already being built in US shipyards.

  38. leesea permalink
    February 23, 2010 1:26 am

    The Stiletto is asingle boat in search of a mission. Any comparsion to LCS is questionable but I am sure some congressional type would insert an earmakr for consideration? A better comparions would be with a Skjold SES which of course is a real ship and would win hands down. I can’t remember there cost but I am sure their pricer than Stilettos.

    Skjold operate in the littorals have real weapons and real boat and troop capacity.

  39. February 23, 2010 12:27 am

    I’ve been looking at this ship (Google searches that is) and I have yet to read about any type of weapons fit. Does it even have provisions to mount a heavy machine gun?

  40. elgatoso permalink
    February 22, 2010 11:35 pm

    Could they be unmanned?The Stiletto,I mean.

  41. DesScorp permalink
    February 22, 2010 10:47 pm

    That’s a good ad and gets to the heart of the matter. If we just want some fast pirate chasers and some boats to drop off SEALS in the littoral, hell yes, cancel the Little Crappy Ship, and buy 25 of these instead.

  42. CBD permalink
    February 22, 2010 10:42 pm

    Too low, small and short legged. Or too ‘high,’ large and short legged? It makes a good argument for a true corvette in many of those missions. Bought in numbers like the Stiletto and with focused missions; direct hitting power like the LCS.

    A pretty bad sell using the LCS-2, since it is ‘leggier’ than the Stiletto and the LCS-1 and has few of the main drawbacks inherent in the LCS-1 design. Its own difficulties, sure, but they’d do better selling it against LCS-1.

    There’s no reason we should jump from expensive yet not-what-is-needed to cheap but not-what-is-needed, though I respect their advertising attempts. I just don’t see the M80 maintaining its nice characteristics when really loaded up with the necessary equipment.

  43. Chris Stefan permalink
    February 22, 2010 9:00 pm

    I know which I’d rather have for dealing with pirates or Iranian swarm attacks in the Persian Gulf.

  44. acg permalink
    February 22, 2010 8:47 pm

    500 nm range and no blue water capability.

    Any advantage is negated by the fact it has to have a ship carry it there, support it while its there, and carry it home.

    Also don’t see how this is better than a Mk V special ops craft. Those are at least air transportable.

  45. Mike Burleson permalink*
    February 22, 2010 8:17 pm

    It’s all about power dispersed versus the concentration of capability. We have plenty of capability with our Blue Water battleships. Must we have a coastal battleship as well, too costly to afford in numbers for proper sea control?

    25 Stilettos can handle many more pirates and smugglers than 1 LCS. And the pirates go to sea in vessels far less sea worthy even out on the ocean, than the supposed incapable M80 ship.

  46. D. E. Reddick permalink
    February 22, 2010 7:48 pm

    Regarding the LCS and its littoral combat mission, I just posted an interesting item in Breaking News. The Netfires NLOS missile system just underwent a test program by the US Army and it missed four out of six targets. Two of the missed targets were -stationary-. NLOS is supposed to fulfill the NGFS mission for the LCS program.

    Maybe we can still mount a 127 mm / 62 cal. gun forward on either LCS design for the NGFS mission (since NLOS may actually be an ‘iN LOSs’ system). And while we’re at that maybe the positions for two SuW 30 mm chaingun cannon can be upgraded to the BAE / Bofors Mk 110 57 mm DP cannon (being medium caliber CIWS mounts). Of course, the overweight LCS-1 design might roll over if so armed (far too much tophamper weight).

  47. Mike Burleson permalink*
    February 22, 2010 7:21 pm

    Thanks Andy. I agree with the notion of the LCS as mothership. It is too small and expensive for this role. It also wants to be a patrol boat like Stiletto. Too bad! I like focused mission ships, like Stiletto, which surprisingly can do may roles not in its original designation. Do it all multimission vessels like LCS perform extremely mediocre functions for all its high cost and touted capabilities, like chasing smugglers, which apparently it is doing right now in the Carib.

  48. Andy B. permalink
    February 22, 2010 7:13 pm

    The LCS is over budget and past due from its original completion date. In fact, it’s over budget $175 million. Just another example of how wasteful the government is with our hard earned tax dollars. (I know, I work for the government) I see it everyday.

    In response to the “mothership” remark, no the stiletto doesn’t necessarily need a mothership to operate, especially once it is there. The mothership is a good thing to have so your putting less uneccessary crew members in harms way. Plus, one mothership could essentially resupply multiple stilettos in alternating intervals. Even the ships we deploy right now aren’t completely self-sustaining. They get refueled and resupplied all the time.

    Plus the LCS design is not focused on the mission of littoral, high-speed, combat operations; It practically IS a mothership. M Ship hit the nail on the head in response to the Navy’s original request for a fast, agile, shallow-draft, radar-stealthy and low-cost vessel to allow multicraft swarming attacks on coastal enemy positions.

    Say what you will, but I agree that the Stiletto is just what we need for the naval wars of today and tomorrow instead of a replay of the past.

    One last question: Do you see any LCS ships currently protecting our country? The Stiletto is actively involved in drug interdiction and homeland security as we speak.

  49. Mike Burleson permalink*
    February 22, 2010 6:10 pm

    Man! No one liked the ads? Wait till you see the promo video!

  50. WTH permalink
    February 22, 2010 5:54 pm

    And what happens to the force if you disable the mothership? No way home sucks.

  51. Bill permalink
    February 22, 2010 5:42 pm

    Right. Them motherships..how much they cost, btw, especially ones big enough to pick up and cart around some number of those skiffs that don’t like rough water? Do LCS’s need motherships?

  52. Scott B. permalink
    February 22, 2010 5:28 pm

    Bill said : “What it the range of the Stiletto again?”

    Naval NewSpeak mode on /

    Yes, but with the support of a *mothership*, blah blah blah…

    Naval NewSpeak mode off /

  53. Bill permalink
    February 22, 2010 5:22 pm

    What it the range of the Stiletto again?

  54. Heretic permalink
    February 22, 2010 4:56 pm

    I’m highly amused by the comparison of 25 Stilettos deployed around the world doing *work* while LCS-2 is (stuck?) refueling in port. Certainly makes for good ad copy. ^_-

  55. B.Smitty permalink
    February 22, 2010 3:59 pm

    Solomon said, “Wow. When you put it that way….

    … it still sounds like a bad deal. :)

  56. February 22, 2010 3:45 pm

    Wow. When you put it that way….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: