Wednesday, January 16, 2013

LCS Camouflage Fun

You've probably all heard by now that LCS-1, USS Freedom, will be sporting a new camouflage paint job for its Singapore deployment.  The Navy proudly trumpets that the camouflage was designed by the LCS' crew. 



Now, think about that for a moment.  Experts have studied visual camouflage for years and yet a group of undermanned and overworked crewmembers come up with a scheme on their own.  Either many experts have wasted a great deal of time over the decades or this scheme confers no real camouflage capability.  I tend to believe it's the latter.  This smacks of a desire for a paint job to cover up the hideously dirty condition of the LCS after more than a few days at sea and someone got the bright idea of letting the crew come up with their own version of camo.  Since the camo wouldn't actually be effective anyway, why not let the crew have some fun and maybe generate a bit of pride?  Nothing wrong with that.  However, for the Navy to try to sell it as a legitimate camo scheme is absurd.

13 comments:

  1. Why did the crew pick "rust bucket" as the scheme?

    Some people....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gee... those dark patches line up perfectly with the side mounted diesel exhaust ports :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. (1) Alas, the camouflage doesn't interfere with electronic detection.
    (2) Didn't we give up sharp color changes (e.g., big bright white numbers) because they make good aimpoints for optical seekers?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is just like the Navy's new digital utilities. An article I read a couple of years ago quoted a Navy spokesman actually stating the new cammies were to help hide dirt and grease!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, the Camo is multifunction then. Hidding those exhaust marks will save a lot of work for crew.

      Actually I think the port side make sense as is can make speed estimates by a surface observer, like those on a boat or shore difficult. Simular methods were used during WWII.

      Delete
  5. For more LCS fun, watch this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r48-4qvZTTw

    ComNavOps, I think you may just lay an egg afterwards. Or smash your monitor and keyboard to pieces. Either way, the reaction is not going to be pretty.

    The sheer cheek of Lockheed Martin is astounding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahh but who came up with the idea of a ship that MUST go 55+kts be able to perform basicly every function but missile defense and have only 20-30 crew? All for 300-400mil?

      The Navy.

      All of this was obviously stupid and impossible but the demanded it. the Navy represents 80% of the blame all they had to do was realize reality but no.....

      Delete
    2. It is the obligation of any company to explain to their customers what is realistic and what is not, what is expensive and what is not. That's how you build a reputation as a trust worthy, reliable manufacturer.

      Further, the Navy did not force Lockheed Martin to produce a marketing video touting all of the horrible aspects of their Littoral Combat Ship as if they were selling points.

      Delete
  6. The Ticonderoga"s are lousy, the Burke's rust, the LCS"s are no good...fortunately the carriers seem to work...and the US Navy is still the most capable in the world today...reading your blog makes me wonder how they do that! No system, no ship, no tank will ever be perfect, it is all the result of compromise. Young crews are deploying the LCS, a new type of ship, let's give them a chance guy"s!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is that the ships have no teeth, no legs at speed, lack 90% of their weapons and tech, have paper thin hulls and that crew is half the size AT THE LEAST that the need to be for the ops they are going to do.

      Delete
    2. European warships allways have a far smaller crew than US ships and still they seem to work..the trimaran outboard "floaters" are a kind of double hull,also the shallow draft helps against mines and torpedoes, weaponry is light I concede, but stop chewing on the crews who try to make these ships work.The camouflage scheme is, if you study it closer and look at history not so stupid as it seems.

      Delete
    3. It seems that European warships always have littoral operations in mind and know how to build a warship with Littoral capability that the US Navy seems to be sorely lacking.

      Delete
    4. Far more than in the US it is the stringend budgetting that drives the conception of warships in europe. Now, for blue water high intensity battle US warships are surely far superior.It is the ease of obtaining money that makes US Navy build the kind of ships they have. Now crews are far less comitted to there ship as european since they shift far more than we do. Some sailors serve 10 years on the same ship overhere and are allowed more initiative. Good to see LCS crews seem to have the spirit!They are stationed far from high command and seem to enjoy some liberty...

      Delete