USS Independence (LCS-2) (Updated)

Posted: 25 February, 2010 by SeaBart in ugly
Tags: , ,
Dunno source, via the Interweb

Dunno source, via the Interweb

USS Independence

Pennant nr : LCS-2

Build : 2008 by Austal USA, Mobile, Alabama in the USA, nr ??

Above picture has been accumulating dust in my archives for quit a while now, I was flabbergasted (love that word) when I first saw it due to the sheer monstrosity of the vessel on it. I never knew the name of the 3-legged (3-finned??) monster on the picture untill I found out by accident the other day. She is the USS Independence, a class prototype for the Independence-class littoral combat ship, whatever that may mean……

And when I knew the name of the beast more pictures were quickly discovered.

Dunno source, via the Interweb

Dunno source, via the Interweb

Dunno source, via the Interweb

Dunno source, via the Interweb

Dunno source, via the interweb

Dunno source, via the interweb

I have no idea in which war or conflict this ship is going to be but I’m pretty sure that as soon as the enemy see this beast approaching from the farfarfar horizon they will surrender on the spot, white flags all over….just to not get any more visibly acquainted with this monstrosity.

Some drawings, just for fun:

Dunno source, via the interweb

Dunno source, via the interweb

Dunno source, via the Interweb

Dunno source, via the Interweb

btw:

The hull of this navy-thing is based on the hull of this vessel: Benchijigua Express build by the competitor of my most favourite ugly shipyard…Austal Shipyard from Down-Under.


A vessel so ugly that she deserves a post of her own, which will happen one day!

Update (25-02-2010)

I found this picture somewhere on the interwebs…..and I love it. It does show of the ugliness of the design but also the effectiveness of it. It also looks a bit like a dart, thrown by a drunken visitor of a sleazy pub.

Photo courtesy Dennis Griggs, General Dynamics, via the Interwebs

About these ads
Comments
  1. Ed says:

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think this ship looks good yet badass; definitely no way near your ugly category.

    Sorry mate, I have to disagree with ya.

  2. Robert says:

    How can you remark on something being ugly etc when you obviously know nothing about the vessel, its mission, or purpose nor its capabilities. USN Chief

  3. seabart says:

    Because I have eyes in my head and a very good developed sense of aesthetics.

  4. John says:

    It’s a good thing the USN is more concerned with effectively and efficiently killing people when building warships rather than what an uneducated blogger thinks about their appearance.

  5. seabart says:

    I’m sooo happy that I’m very uneducated about killing people…keeps my limited brain-capacity free to do things that are soooo much more fun. Like this site for instance.

  6. JM says:

    It’s so ugly, even RADAR can’t see it!

  7. SanDiegan says:

    I agree with you, I think we should only have pretty, gay-boy warships. After all, it’s the new Navy! What would Heidi Klum say?

  8. seabart says:

    I don’t know, she didn’t tell me last time we spoke.

  9. Bill says:

    Ugly?? At 2500 tons, 400+ feet, 45 kts and a crew of 40…I could learn to love ugly. :)

  10. sweeps says:

    USN PO 3rd Class EN USS New Jersey BB-62 83-86. I thought the USS Long Beach was a bad ass ship. This ship looks like a real bad ass! 52mph it clocked in trials. That is incredible for a ship that size. I would classify it as the Ducatti of ships. If I were it’s foe I would be intimidated… very intimidated.

  11. james says:

    i work for GD on this project and beleave me is it complete badass i have been on all 12 seatrials and u just have to experiance it to appriciate it

  12. Richard says:

    I just saw this and said WOW! It’s what I expect from the Armed Forces I love and depend on. It looks awesome to me! You go NAVY!!

  13. Victor M. Jacobs says:

    Seems that when you try to minimize military naval forces, there’re a few of us that respond. The merchant navy can’t exist without the military navy. Get over yourself.

    MM1 Jacobs USN ’72 – ’80.

  14. Victor M. Jacobs says:

    If you want background on me and seabart, look up USS Longbeach CGN-9.

  15. Victor M. Jacobs says:

    Seabart,
    In the military, the cannon fodder believes that the logs will survive. In the merchant navy, the officers believe the logs will go down with the ship.

    Thats my belief. Whats yours?

  16. Don says:

    LOL Seabart.
    LCS2 is definitely an ugly ship, but then again I used to work for LM so I’m biased toward LCS1. The ferry I think actually looks really darn cool. Too bad LCS2 didn’t adopt more of its looks.

  17. Brian says:

    Ugly? Heck yeah!
    Love the ugly? Heck yeah!

    My critique of LCS-2? When a steel ship takes a solid hit, it limps to port for repairs. When an aluminum ship takes a solid hit, if melts to the waterline and sinks (HMS Sheffield), or, if it has a steel hull under the aluminum structure, it melts to the steel and hopes for a tow (USS Belknap, USS Stark).

    I’d love to see more of this ugliness: double the length, beam, and draft, making an 8k ton ship, but don’t change the hight of the ship since I’m imagining it made of steel, not aluminum.

  18. Xandalis says:

    I was an airdale while I was in the Navy so I’m not quite up on my “seamanship” as well, someone from the surface ratings. However, this is still one ship I wouldn’t want to be in the sights of. Yes, she only has one weapon system at this time (the “missile-in-a-box” missile system that was being developed is most likely to get scrapped at this stage, according to a story on it I read from military.com), and it is only a deck gun. But considering short of a visual contact, you won’t see this ship coming. By the time a target could get a fix on the LCS, that target would probably be heavily damaged.

    The whole concept really strikes me as the same premise to our stealth fighters/bombers: it’s not so much about absolute stealth, as it is about stealth until you deliver a crap-ton of ordinance on target.

  19. Aaron says:

    Your such a negative person. I’m in the Air Force, and know nothing about the details of this ship, but learned quickly from others replies. Your so negative, how about focusing on the good. Your probably just jealous of how long it took to come up and make this beautiful ship. I can even appreciate that, as most people that are diss’ing you on your own site.

  20. SeaBart says:

    Some call it negativism, others call it realism….

  21. david says:

    you know,that ship quite fast. i wish it had more weapons!!!!! LCS1 looks more ugly than LCS2!!!!

  22. I was blown awaw by this beautiful ship, and when i saw the specs on its performance, WOW. seems you either love it or hate it with no inbetween.If I was on a Cruise ship and was being harrased by any bad guys the sight of this baby heading your way should break it up in seconds.!! CDR Edwin E Quesinberry , USN Retired

  23. louie says:

    thus this ship can move backward?….

  24. Matt Savage says:

    this ship is a monstrosity of naval failure. it is barely armed, drastically less than a 3000 ton ship should be, only able to defend it self for a short time in a very low threat environment, has barely anything resembling the capabilities its price tag implies. it carries only sort range RAM missiles, and a single medium gun.that’s it. an M1 tank has more offensive fire power than this thing thats supposed to be a surface warfare vessel. no torpedoes. no msm 2 sm 3 harpoon or essm missiles. noe phased array or asea radar. barely enough fuel for three days, too few crew to handle any damage. they had a party because they managed to save weight by changing the doors on the module package boxes, but still dont have any modules to put in them. for this were paying half a billiion each. we could have simply re fitted the hulls of perry frigates with 24 mk 41 vls and stuck the frigate aegis on it and had a drastically more capable vessel for 1/5 the price. no one will be running from this thing its utterly incapable of doing anything other than ramming.

  25. Mike Urich says:

    This ole BT would love to be able to go back and serve on a ship like that. She’s beautiful.

  26. T says:

    What on earth has specifications (or names/family members serving on a particular ship) to do with aesthetics? Gotta love these indoctrinated, brainwashed US-military (ex-)employees…
    This ship is so ugly that it outdoes practically every single naval ship ever made in terms of ugliness, and that includes all the Russian stuff.

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