Coolest. Comments. Ever.

A reader recently passed along this comment from a recent post:

"I didn't want to sound like a complete dork for actually having a preconceived opinion on the ship before even having read your stance so you get the email. I agree in your assessment that this ship provides a valuable service in taking away money from the DDG1000, a ship with no true purpose (one can argue this for most destroyers, as their principle purpose in life is to get hit by the first missiles instead of the carrier). I also like that you call it what it is, a corvette instead of a frigate. But I think your assessment of it being the kick-ass version of light naval warfare may be a bit overstated. Mostly this occurs in one place, armament. There is no doubt that it is a good hull design, vastly superior to the Northrup designed ship. But the choice to use SeaRAM launchers (we call those matchbox launchers) befuddles me, besides the fact they are cheaper. That is what they back fit the early Ticonderoga class cruisers and Iowa class battleships with, the integrated VLS MK41 system in a 1 or two module configuration (a good example is the Turkish Navy frigates, based on the German MEKO design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEKO)) with the ESSM package packs alot more flexibility and punch. Also, why they use the Bofors gun (besides bofors sounding cool and being built by BAE) when we have MK 45 5" guns laying around the country with their 30 mile range guideable projectiles, seems the weapons guys in either the Navy or GD missed the ball on this one. I can't see a ship this lightly armed making a serious defense against a well equipped brown-water navy on their turf, they will need that speed to stay out of the punching range. But the tri-maran is pretty cool, and the flexibility in mission will make this a pretty awesome ship, somewhere between the Virginia class submarine and my kayak! "

To which I reply: Too late, you do sound like a dork. But this blog is a safe haven for our kind.
There are a lot of people who agree with you regarding the DDG 1000 program. Admittedly, the LCS program has already had enormous overruns on both ships from separate contractors. I sometimes wonder if the high military expenditures of the Bush administration (they've been enormous, even excepting troops in Afghanistan and Iraq) are a dual purpose recapitalization of the military. First, the Clinton administration let the military run on existing equipment for almost a decade without buying any replacement ships, aircraft, vehicles, whatever. Say you have a business with a dozen identical vehicles. If you refuse to replace any of them until they are all completely broken down, you are facing buying a bunch of new vehicles at once instead of a gradual, rolling replacement. Secondly, by tying up massive sums of cash in long-term defense programs (F-35 Lightning II, Missile Defense, DDG-1000, CGN, Future Combat Systems...), it's not available to push a liberal agenda for following administrations. For all the talk about reductions of defense expenditures, even if a Democrat is elected president they are going to face an uphill struggle to trim any of this money to free it up for things like socialized medicine, or whatever they are calling for.
Meanwhile, I also call the USS Independence a corvette because that's the name of the sweetest sports car in history. I'm referring especially to the Stingray line of the 70's. That's some bad steel. Anyway, I'm sure that the firepower of these ships pales before the might of the Iowa Class or a carrier air wing. If we had a serious tilt with a regional power, we would try to quickly get carrier battle groups involved to remove that country's capital ships from the water or force them back into port within 24 hours of the carrier's arrival. That's not the point, though. The concern is the use of "asymmetric" forces to tilt the matchup back in the bad guys' favor. They flood the water with very small attack craft, or they assault oil rigs to drive up world gas prices (hurting developed nations), or they park a dozen diesel-electric submarines in the path of our carrier group. The LCS corvettes are meant to establish a network of eyes, ears, and measured firepower where the bad guys are trying to do the same thing. You end up with a high number of discrete assets to sink small subs, protect oil rigs or convoys, or smote fast attack craft. To carry an AEGIS capability like the Ticonderoga cruisers you need a world-beating radar, tons of space for surface to air missiles... and that wouldn't leave room for anything else in a small hull. Anyway, I think that the capacity for many unmanned vehicles will provide over-the-horizon targeting information on air, surface, or submarine contacts to maximize use of the weapons that the ships do carry. Think about it, it the ability to find and accurately deliver firepower (and then evade a counterattack with speed and stealth) far outweighs the overall firepower a ship is packing. See also: The Battle of Midway.