Navy Leaders Try to Rescue LCS From Its Own Report

Navy Leaders Try to Rescue LCS From Its Own Report

Senators lined up Wednesday at a Sea Power hearing to question Navy leaders about the internal service report first obtained by Bloomberg in which Navy Rear Adm. Samuel Perez wrote that the Littoral Combat Ship was “ill-suited to execute regional commander’s warfighting needs.”

Lawmakers wanted details why the U.S. should continue to invest in the $37 billion program to continue building the next-generation surface ship fleet.

“The Navy plans for the Littoral Combat Ship to comprise over one-third of the nation’s total surface combatant fleet by 2028, and yet the Littoral Combat Ship has not yet demonstrated adequate performance of assigned missions. We need to fix it or find something else rapidly,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Navy leaders.

A conference call with reporters was organized Wednesday afternoon to allow the head of the LCS Council, Vice Adm. Richard Hunt, to provide the Navy’s explanation to defense reporters about the progress the program has made since the report was published internally about one year ago.

The major problems with the LCS program in the report was the amount of firepower on board as well as its manning. Perez questioned whether the LCS could sustain an attack in combat and respond.

Hunt pointed out that the report was a year old and the LCS Council, the agency he heads, has since been stood up to start addressing the issues raised in it. He argued that problems like are to be expected in development programs like this.

However, it’s rare for a Navy leader to question the ability of a platform — even one in development — to meet basic mission requirements at this stage in the program. The LCS program started in 2002.

Military​.com reporter Kris Osborn observed the hearings, read portions of the report, and was on the call with Hunt. Read more of the Navy’s explanations about how they plan to rescue the LCS program here.

Tags: , , ,

Join the Conversation

A-12, Crusader, Commanche, FCS, and hopefully soon: LCS. To call this vessel a dud is overstating its capability.

Stop this thing now before our sailors are forced to go to war with this little crappy ship. Remember, one goes into the fight with what one has. 40 knots is not sufficient to out run a missile.

The truth comes out at last.

Sec Def Hagel, what are you waiting for: CANCEL the LCS, CANCEL the F-35.
How about more subs and less aircraft carriers. Fasttrack the FXX program and yes, we need new ICBMs. Forget global zero.

It’s been known for quite awhile the flaws in the LCS program, the navy’s only been fooling themselves.

Well?!? If the NAVY were to put 2 twin 5“38’s on the bow, and one twin 3″ on each stern peak with a negative encroachment angle, and 4 phalanx on the forecastle

Cancel LCS, in their place build MUCH smaller ships (with 6–10 ASMs each) that can use an LPD as a “mothership.” Save time, money, and have more missile on more hulls. Otherwise just put the money into more Zumwalts, but this thing HAS to go.…

Given the fiscal conditions , I don’t think it’s realistic to start a new program from scratch.

My ideas on fixing the LCS

1) Install two VLS modules on the two mission hatches. Not those shitty 30mm guns. I want the VLS. The ship may go slower because of the weight but I don’t care. I want ESSMs and ASROCs in those VLS tubes.

2)Concentrate on making the LCS as a dedicated ASW ship. Make sure those ASW modules work. Stop wasting resources on the mine hunting modules.

3) Don’t’ care if there will be design changes , but you better make sure those LRASM missiles in development better fit into the VLS tubes on the LCS.

That simply cannot be done. The amount of modification needed for the ammo, the extra gun crews, the weight on the superstructure, electrical conduits for the weapon stations, the list goes on. It would need a near total redesign for that.

You cannot simply plop a VLS into a ship. It requires reworking of the core structure to accommodate the system’s size and bulk. The LCS is also not fitted with the proper FCS to use a VLS, and that would also need to be installed. Severe structural changes would be necessary, and would be nearly restarting from scratch.

Freedom class can sacrifice hangar space to install full size VLS cells. It’s on the export option. It can also accommodate a 76mm foregun. Independance can’t take full length VLS cells and can’t take the 76mm gun.

It might be doable to put the Freedom class in place with a bow sonar and sacrifice some engine/speed and have a perfectly acceptable ASW frigate for less than a billion per hull equipped.

I guess what I mean is that the truth has come out in a way that makes the proponents for the LCS and the shareholders of the defense contractors very uncomfortable.

Full Aegis capabilities do require a stretched 3,500 ton hull, and basic VLS on the standard hull removes 1/3 of the hangar and the sprint speed turbines. And it’s only 8 missile cells. The 76mm gun I agree with, but the other changes sacrifice quite a bit. That compromise solution isn’t really any better than the perry frigates it’s supposed to be replacing.

This is a rather novel situation — now we’ve got the navy itself dissing the principal results of one of the largest programs in the navy. Seeing our navy having a fight with itself over whether the LCS is at all capable would be hysterical if it wasn’t so tragic.

The primary problem in all this, is that despite our history in WW2, where the US got very good at building, manning, fighting, and winning in the littorals — NONE of those lessons were applied to either class of LCS.

The taxpayers have taken a beating over this boondoggle. Acquisition in the DoD is such a mess, that the entire stinking system should be put under receivership.

Exactly right, Jcross. Where’s the accountability for the people that advocated this costly failure? Retirement and a 6 figure salary with a defense contractor?

The Burkes are looking better every day. Much rather have 25 more Burkes than 55 LCS

On VLS fitting into LCS: we DON’T need ABM-capable Standard/Tomahawk compliant Mk41 cells.

This: MK48 VLS http://​www​.seaforces​.org/​w​p​n​s​y​s​/​S​U​R​F​A​C​E​/​M​k​-​4​8​-​mis

is quite suitable for an LCS-sized hull.
It would also allow a weapon the size of G-MLRS for land attack.

As for the guns:
nix the 30mm systems.
Use single-barrel variants of the EAPS system. http://​www​.dtic​.mil/​n​d​i​a​/​2​0​1​1​g​u​n​m​i​s​s​i​l​e​/​T​u​e​s​d​a​y11
Two shell types: the steerable ones for anti-missile/anti-air,
and another for anti-surface modeled around the Bofors 40 and 57mm ammo equipped with the 3P fuze.

For ASW, install the damn 12.75″ TT that have served every NATO ally so well for so long, do NOT make the vessel so entirely dependent on its 2 helicopters and 3 drones to accomplish every mission.

Just wait, Brad. You’ll get a chance to put LOTS more money into the ZUMWALT hole. And that one has NO capabilities designed into it. Trying to put that pier with a water jet to sea will be a near impossible task. At least with LCS there might be a chance that it will have a mission it can accomplish someday — maybe.

Not at $2B a ship they don’t. Add to it the cost of mid service life upgrades and it’s far worse. Think fiscal constraints. This isn’t the Navy of old anymore.

Thank you for bringing this point up. Folks seem to think the VLS (being modular) can fit in any hole of similar size. It’s a huge system and in reality I don’t see any ship with the LCS’s mission (of countering swarms of fast attack craft) and size (3000T displacement) going after a VLS. That’s the problem with the larger slower ships. I can’t counter 45 individual small boat threats with a missile in excess of $1 mil. That’ll bankrupt the Navy before the war ever starts.

Never been a fan of this whole “street fighter” concept. The USN shouldn’t be buying expendable ships. This is not their culture. Expendability is not the American way. Burke prices could be lowered with intelligent acquisition policies and cost reduction initiatives, and we’d have a useful ship at the end of the day.

“internal service report first obtained by Bloomberg” how did that happen???? what happened to opsec, what was that a Senator leaking it for some insider trading deal? I’m a mustang joined a PFC, Combat Engineer MOS 12E, present status Colonel, Corps of Engineers.… RR status. I’m a ground pounder trained in the art of airborne-forced entry air land battle w/USN “Over the horzion” All I hear from u USN & USMC types is that this thing is a piece of crap, how could it survive this long? What happened to the expertise of Navsea? I worked while in RC status for GD on 688’s & 726’s. An AL hulled ship? let me take you to FT. Sill & see what a HE or worse yet a willie peat 155mm round could do to this hull & its crew, let alone all the inventory of high tech missles the USN & AF have, (& then our potential enemies in Asia!) this thing is an Edsel, its a worse waste of $$$ than the ACV & F-35, I don’t know what scrap AL is goin’ for but it might be an option. I think in theory to those puzzle palace confined, it was a great idea, to congress ahhhhh jobs for voters, to the brave sailors that have & will defend the “blue water” of the world for ALL of us, not a viable hull for all out war with a enemy of ever growing capability, power projection, and Aggressiveness through its proxy allies. Someone throw cold h2o on me, because I don’t know what our foreign. pol. is, our prioritization of strategic interests is, or who are allies are among the “emerging nations”.….….…out here

Again, too many people automatically imply “VLS” refers to the large Tomahawk-and-Standard Missile capable, quad-Sea Sparrow packing cells.
VLS (Vertical Launch System) is as generic a term as AESA (active electronically scanned/steered array) used in radars today.

There are VLS systems considerably smaller: even the NLOS/NetFires originally envisioned for the LCS was going to be a VLS-launched munition.

Here: Barak missile http://​www​.rafael​.co​.il/​m​a​r​k​e​t​i​n​g​/​S​I​P​_​S​T​O​R​A​G​E​/​FIL

Sea Wolf can VLS also: http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​S​e​a​_​W​o​l​f​_​m​i​s​s​ile

Read further into that article: the Sea Ceptor derivative of CAMM will offer a very ideal system that could turn the LCS into a much more well-rounded platform.
Equivalently, VLS-ing Raytheon’s Stunner (AMRAAM-sized) would even allow an LCS considerably-improved anti-missile abilities, providing it was matched to suitable sensor and fire control system, not the current garbage.

This is a great point: How many of us, would want OUR sons/daughters/etc, serving on a ship the navy considered “expendable”?

And at $400M/sea-frame, thats a lot of money for “expendable”.

I’m waiting for the Malaysian pirates to go one-on-one with one of these lightweights. I don’t recall any of the costly “modules” being available yet (still in “development”), so what’s its carrying to defend itself? A machine gun? A pirate with an RPV can take one of these out, especially when its sitting pierside refueling itself from that gas guzzler of an engine.

The More bad news the LCS brings, the More were realizing that we should have gone with a European frigate design or base a frigate off the NSC

The only major change would be the electronics hut under B-turret and the patch to fire control.

The Navy should cancel the LCS and the F-35, the F-35B the Marines want so bad at $295 Million a pop has new MAJOR issues as reported to the MOD and I quote ” The hi-tech jets that will be flown from the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers cannot land on the ships in “hot, humid and low pressure weather conditions”, a report warns today.” So just how are the Marines going to be able to use the F-35B in the Pacific if the can’t land on ships in “hot, humid and low pressure weather conditions”????
. http://​www​.defense​-aerospace​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​-​v​i​e​w​/​rel

The LCS still doesn’t have ‘Mission Modules” that work, and the damn thing breaks down just about every time it goes on an extend voyage. As another poster has said we should have gone with a European design or gone with something along the lines of the new Coast Guard cutters, at least they can defend themselves to some degree.

Proof that LCS is they Navy’s GCV a billion dollar boondoggle. Many ways the generals will fight till the better end to defend there pork projects. But LCS must die too.

Hell yeah. The defense contractors that designed these pieces of crap totally agree with you. Cancel the LCS program. After all, no one is going to be held accountable for all the billions they spent designing these pieces of garbage, and the same contractors are going to win the next contract — which will most certainly be a better program than this one is — they always are! Sure, cancel the LCS. That will show them! Ha ha ha!

Sure, cancel the LCS so the defense contractors won’t have to build them anymore and can go on to the next development program where they will make more free money designing the next crappy ship for our Navy run by crooks and traitors. That’s a brilliant idea. Let’s never go back to having the Navy design their own ships. Let’s never stop paying contractors a profit to come in late or never with f’ed up designs for new weapons. Let’s cancel every new weapon program just before it goes into production. That will show those greedy contractors how smart we are. Idiots!

The zumwalt is one of the best programs going in the Navy right now. It is on cost and ahead of schedule. I find it ironic that you defened the LCS while pasting the same problems the LCS has onto the Zumwalt. At least the Zumwalt has fire power, VLCs, and has started with reasonable expectations instead of originiating out of a pipe dream. LEARN from history (the British inparticular) speed does not save lives, just ask the crews that died in the Battle of Jutland. Armour and firepower wins naval battles.

So this is the situation; There are 14 ships in class; for the same cost you could have 60 Allen Sumner Class destroyers with the flight deck and hanger forward of C turret with all of the same things as; but because you already have 14; each one could support 8 PT-boats, along with whatever their current mission is; As for the Carrier Task Forces; scientifically; there are 12 Super Carriers in service and rotation.

I can imagine more than one person willing to throw LCS under the bus for Zumwalts.

The real solution is probably going to be USVs that can be deployed from as many ships as possible: or ideally from torpedo tubes, which DDG’s and submarines *do* have. The LCS is going to be that guy with the minesweeper that you send forward to get shot: operating at the edge of defensive capability and presumably closest to the enemy…at which point Unmanned Surface Vessels are more likely to be used for minesweeping and littoral combat.

If an LCS took a hit in the side from a raft with explosives (a la USS Cole), what would’ve happened? :|

The armed services don’t “throw lives away”, they sacrifice them to save something important; or to save more soldiers or civilians. But it doesn’t preclude attritional thinking when required.

However, short-range drones teleoperated from a DDG aren’t a bad idea. We will need them to do minesweeps and ASW, especially since Lemon Can Ship is going to be expensive, logistically tethered to fuel supplies and won’t be operating far away from the DDG’s.

I almost missed your sarcasm there… Nice one…

It was the Navies fault for picking a stupid Idea in the first place.

there is no need for 55kt ships. NONE. The Navy Needs a Frigate design. But no that wasn’t what was new so they had to change it to something revolutionary. Well it failed. And guess what.…they need a frigate design.

The Builders can be a problem but the DoD bares a good bit of the responsibility.

With good leadership a program manager can demand a good vessel. If he isn’t concerned first and formost about that then he won’t be able to do it.

If you need speed, some kind of light USV, UAV or expanded use of maritime patrol aircraft will do it. But naval vessels need station-keeping duration (akin to loiter time for aircraft).

The Navy hasn’t given a lot of thought to Littoral Combat for a long time. The use of modules to replace specialized vessels is a smokescreen for the fact that they’re not quite sure what this swiss army knife is supposed to excel at.

And to be frank, everyone has a swiss army knife, but nobody turns to it as their first choice of tool. It’s our desperate last resort.

Dfens: u have some interesting posts, they kinda contradict themselves! Are u jus bein’ sarcastic, or are u a defense contractor shill?

Great annology to the swiss army knife. Those screw drivers suck and the corkscrews can’t open anything, much like the LCS.…

It wasn’t really sarcasm (except that part about asking people that died in under-protected yet fast “battle cruisers”) Why can’t people learn from history.….

Problem with the Zumwalts is they don’t do anything we need the LCS’s to do, not that the LCS is any answer. They also cost too much for what we need. We need a new ASW frigate, should be doable for under a $billion a hull equipped. We need new mine sweepers, and they don’t need to go 55 kts. A good ASW frigate will be fine in surface combat with speed boats with a decent weapons suite. That’s what we need.

Read this article: http://​defensetech​.org/​2​0​1​1​/​0​7​/​1​9​/​4​6​-​b​i​l​l​i​o​n​-​w​ort… and let me know if you see a trend. If not, hell, cancel every program right before they start production. That’s really what you deserve. I’d like to give you credit for being smarter than that, but wtf you have the same information I have to work with on this one.

I’m a little distressed at the idea of putting all our ASW and MCM into the LCS. It’s probably to protect the LCS from being killed, but even then the LCS is just a platform for concept art USV’s and UAV’s to do ASW and mine warfare.

Proceedings said that two years ago.
But I don’t think anybody reads anymore

I’m only replying to your comment so as to help the casual reader understand. First of all, why the U.S. would ever consider reacquiring a 70+ year old destroyer design as a replacement for LCS, or attempt to modify LCS into a “mothership” for 8 PT boats is beyond understanding. Second, there are 11 carriers, and normally 10 in rotation at any one time.

We need to replace the LCS with a multi-warfare capable Aegis Guided Missile Frigate. These platforms must be able to handle any tasking the DDG-51s can short of saturation long range AAW, and Ballistic Missile Defense. Theater Ballistic Missile Defense may be a good additional mission and a welcome addition to any battle group. A great discussion is going on at the Aegis Guided Missile Frigate facebook page.

“Aegis Guided Missile Frigate”

I assume it’ll require a compact SPY-1 (F? K?). But while we’re at it, we may skip SPY-1 PESA for AESA? The SPY-3 for maritime is AESA, but until it enters mass production it’ll be too early to make promises about using it on any hypothetical vessel.

Your big concern here is intent and cost. Do you intend a FFG to operate alone and provide BMD with minimal self-defense capability, freeing up DDG’s for BMD of the fleet or to go on offense? Or is FFG intended to operate in blue-green water, where land attack and self-defense against aircraft and missiles is called for?

I suppose you can go either-or, you’ll still need an SPY of some kind but will be carrying different missiles for different missions. This in turn calls for VLS, but how much?

That’s why I have long advocated in scrapping the LCS entirely and going to Europe to buy Frigate designs from them. The LCS as it is, is nothing more than a Death trap. The LCS would never survive in combat or in a situation such as the Battle off Samar. Even the people who were in Tafy 3 can tell you the LCS would be sunk in seconds after a first hit and after succeeding hits from the enemy

Heck, we could even see about getting in with the Royal Navy’s Type 26 Frigate they call the Global Combat Ship, Germany’s Type 125 Baden-Württemberg class Frigate, Spain’s The Alvaro de Bazan class frigates or Fridtjof Nansen class frigates. Even see if we can buy some of South Korean Navy’s Incheon Class Frigates as well.

We do need a Frigate that can get close to shore in the littorals and has the deep open ocean escort capability that has limited AAW, ASW,ASUW, limited Land attack and NGFS capability for the Marines as well. We need a Frigate that can do everything up to a DDG/CG and still be able to protect the NFAF, Merchant Marine Fleet, ARG/ESG and provide convoy and escort protection of shipping lanes.

I’m sorry to have to break the news on this to you but the cost of Sumner Class destroyers would not be as economical as it was when they were built. Having served on one, I can tell you that they would be hopelessly inadequate in terms of sensors for one important measurement. Sumners had 600LB superheated M type boilers which burned “Navy Distillate” fuel oil. There aren’t any engineers in the Navy who operate those types of plants any more so they would have to be trained from the beginning and then, you’d need to get a source and infrastructure for the Navy Distillate. The gun fire control system was optical/analog and not able to the do the currently required fire missions to support Marines ashore.
I could go on in great detail but will stop at this point except to point out that jsut because Model T’s were sold for $500 back in the day is not a reason to try to restart production of Model Ts in 2013

So, is the ten foot difference in draft between the LCS and an FFG-7 class or other current frigate or patrol cutter provide that much of a benefit, especially when compared to a real combat ship?

This one-size-fits-all crap is more about the way the Navy does business than it is about some reasoned change in weapon philosophy. The more jobs a weapon does, the broader the support base and the more political clout the program has to continue its existence. If the Navy would go back to designing its own ships, you’d see them build ships with a philosophy of use behind them once again. It might not be the best philosophy, but at least there would be some thread of logic behind them.

You guys need to stop trying to hustle some one strange to you. These days; nuclear reactors come in small packages. Lockheed Martin is so far down the path of misappropriation that if it wasn’t for the First Amendment; everyone involved in F-36, and the LCS programs would be guilty of Treason.

Actually, the Independence class CAN take a 3″ gun, “Austal VP Craig Hooper says it’s quite possible to arm the LCS-2 Independence Class with effective anti-ship weapons and vertical launch cells, which isn’t exactly a surprise since that has been in Austal brochures: ‘You want Harpoon? I can give you eight to 16. You want VLS, 75mm gun? OK we can do it….’” http://​www​.defenseindustrydaily​.com/​t​h​e​-​u​s​a​s​-​new–

Curt Conway… The Arleigh Burke DDG-51s have been excellent warships, arguably the workhorses of the USN, but the A-B is not a good platform for future BMD and saturation long range AAW, as the hull size cannot support the larger aperture radar that will be necessary against stealthier and/or faster targets that will be likely over the 30-year life of a new warship. I’d like to see a flight of lower cost reduced content A-Bs configured as FFGs for the blue water ASW mission in the CSGs.

To protect a CVN to keep the CSG relevant, USN will need a new class of large CGNs, something with the beamwidth and displacement required to support a large aperture variant of AMDR to see steathier and/or faster moving threats at greater distances, as well as VLS missile capacity adequate to defend against swarmed attacks from missles, UAVs, manned aircraft, and surface threats. It would need C2 capacity suitable for CSG flagship, flight deck and hangar capacity for MV-22 intratheater transport that would likely embark on a flagship, and would need to be at least as fast as the CVN it would be paired with (rules out a CG variant of LPD-17 that HII has been suggesting for that mission), would need electrical capacity for the large powerful radars, lasers, etc., and would need guns suitable for rapid direct fires against fast thin skinned surface targets.

USN doesn’t have budget for any of that in the current parsimonious political climate, though I expect the increasingly aggressive PLA(N) may force a change in political priorities toward a return to increased defense spending, back to 5%-6% of GDP.

Personally I would doubt it.
If the USN is so concerned about the LCS’ draught,
then that would also imply that certain times of any given day, LCS could NOT operate in littorals simply for the shifting of the tides.
There are places worldwide where high and low tide could be anywhere from
barely noticeable to measured in meters.
If it gets to the point that LCS CAN’T operate in a certain area because the tide is out that day,…well, should we really be operating such large and expensive vessels that still are afraid of Mother Nature in that aspect?

Wouldn’t that be the ultimate disgrace? “USN Captain relieved when LCS left run aground due to withdrawing tide.”

Rather, I see these operating at a safe distance from near-shore areas if just to avoid any issues caused by changing tides.
As such, the LCS will probably end up in the same nothing-less-than-10m-or-better safe haven depths farther out from coastal shelves…so much for a littoral (brown water?) navy.

At this point in time the navy needs to just scrap the LCS and go with NSC they are about the same size and we are on NSC 6 or 7 now, just a little augmentation which is what congress asked about 4 years ago. why not merge the 2. NSC BERTHOLF has made several deployments we all know by 4 or 5 most of the kinks are figured out.

Except that’s not what we need it to do. We need an ASW platform, not more air and ABM defense.

The Navy would be better off building new FFG’s based on the FFG-7 design but upgaraded with modern combat systems, sensors and weapons.

Just sell our entire Navy to the ChiComs. They’ll protect us! Isn’t that what our current CINC wants, anyway? To gut our Armed Forces and leave us open to invasion by the U.N./Chinese troops? Or does this sound to crazy? Not sure.

In the politically correct military under Obama, we no longer need to fight. We lie our way out of a jam! This vessel is a joke and it’s trials will prove the same!

The statement I learned is : ” Save your face or save your ass” This case calls for Forget your Face and Save their Ass!!””

For that much money per ship, they can easily build a ship that can transform from a devastating assault platform into a deadly sub.

I am an o ‘old goat’ disabled from service & not up to date on all of your cap letter abbreviations. However when I first read about where the Navy was going for all out combat/defense on the oceans, I had a feeling of depression of being led into a situation that could not cut it. Now the feeling has compounded & what can we do ? It is just like the national politics, we actually have no voice, unless we all get together & make our voices heard as one !!!!

A very long time ago an accomplished Naval officer said, ” give me more Frigates !” That became a well — known saying… the more things change, the more they stay the same .……

The LCS should never have been built. Either a combination of the capabilities and stealth hull of the Zumwalt Destroyer with the close-to-shore capabilities of the LCS.
Also install better defensive weaponry. A 2-inch gun and 2 1-inch chainguns? Yeah, it’s on the Zumwalt, but it just seems to be light.
This government lives on waste. It sticks a straw into our brain and sucks the life out.

I have a source that says the crew does not even work on their own ship! Playing Bingo on the Mess Decks while in port. Sick what our Navy has become…

For ASW, blue water and green water present two very different problems.

For blue water… With another platform providing air and missile defense, USN could procure a flight of lower cost reduced content Arleigh Burkes configured as FFGs to perform the blue water ASW mission in the CSGs. Commonality with the DDG-51s would simplify logistics support, while the ASW FFG variant would retain the speed, endurance, and sea keeping of the A-B platform, while also leaving available useful growth margins in displacement and space claim lacking in the smaller OHP FFGs.

For green water… USN needs to develop better modular UUVs for ASW in the littorals. Longer range blue water sonar is near-useless for finding an SSK lurking in the shallows among reefs and shoals. Something has to go in and look for the SSK, very nearly on top of it before finding it. If unmanned systems could be used, it would seem foolish to risk the crew of a manned platform. You still need something to deploy, operate, recover, and service those modular UUVs, and for that a small squadron of Austal’s trimaran LCS operating under the protection of a DDG could cover a lot of water.

View this:

Looks like they haven’t worked anything out

USN warships are designed for 30 year useful life. Tomorrow’s threats need to be included in the calculus. Large aperture radar would be needed to protect a CVN from threats that are stealthier and/or much faster moving than currently faced. There is growing need for better air and missile defense in the CSGs, and the platform should already be in place when the threat presents itself, takes too long to respond with a development program.

DDG-51 is limited to 12–14 foot effective diameter aperture AMDR, depending on how much traded away. AMDR could scale in excess of 36 foot effective diameter, while effective range scales with the cube of the aperture diameter. Size matters.

So DDG-51 is too small to carry that big radar, and big powerful radar cannot be located on the CVN where it would interfere with aircraft avionics. USN needs a new large warship for air, missile, and surface defense against combined swarmed attacks, something fast enough to pair with a CVN. That points to a new class of large CGNs, one per CVN, necessary if the CSGs are going to remain useful against peer level adversary.

As nothing more than just a civilian who has a life time membership in both USNI and USNL (since 1969), I no longer have any confidence in the military procurement process. Too many retired military professionals are hired directly into the defense industry where it seems they forget that their allegiance is to protect the US versus driving profit for the corporation. They use their inside knowledge and their take-no-prisoners drive to make sure that their employer gets the maximum benefit of their contacts. The result is that teams from different defense contractors fight to the death to kill their opponent’s products and services. In the end, soldiers, sailors and airmen have to deal with decades-old equipment while the government is processing the contracts and RFP objections. Example: replacement for the KC-135.I think there should be a “cooling off period” of at least three to five years before a retired military person can go to work for a defense contractor.

Given my personal interest in both the naval service and its history, I have watched the development of the LCS. I agree with an earlier comment on this blog where someone characterized the mission statement of the LCS as a Swiss Army knife. In my humble opinion, the LCS should have had the DNA of the PT boats of World War II with the technical capabilities of the PG-84 gun boats: CODAG propulsion systems that would let them run at 35+ knots when needed while maintaining a nearly 2,000 mile cruising range on diesel at 12 knots. Focus their weapons package on what would be most effective in the littorals. Period. End of paragraph. Stop turning weapons systems proposals/RFPs into Christmas trees to see who can hang the greatest number of ornaments on the tree. __I am a first generation US citizen. My parents came to this country from behind the Iron Curtain in 1948. While I was growing up in this country several members of the US military served as my mentors and helped me adjust to the American culture for which I am forever grateful. I did everything I possibly could to serve, however physical disabilities prevented me being able to enlist. Hence I have lived vicariously through groups like USNI and USNL.

Bring back the Fletcher’s

So pray do tell folks, is this new design of vessel one that can handle a rough sea that much better and provide a better ‘gun platform’ ? You know like the once much vaunted two and three hulled vessels were supposed to do?

The quote was from Admiral Horatio Nelson, HM Royal Navy in the 1780–1790’s. He was speaking of his need for frigates which were his “Eyes of the Fleet”. He was chasing the combined fleets of Spain and France while his small “Wooden Wall” was bottling up the enemy in the ports in Med., Spain and Portugal. Napoleon had 200,000 troops waiting in Normandy to perform D-Day in reverse. in 1805 the frigates found the fleet which Nelson defeated in the Battle of Trafalgar, October –, 1805.
He had no radar, satellites, sonar or B52’s, B2’s, etc. His Frigates did all that for him.

I agree. A ASW platform with moderate surface weapons will accomplish the “LCS dream” senerio and be far cheaper in the long run. That money can be used to supplant our minesweep capabilities

Like the Army, it is all Non-DoD folks feeding, washing and repairing

If the cooling off period were applied to politics/lobbyist as well, this country wouldn’t be 17 trillion in debt
Maybe only 13.…

The LCS Ships are the WartHogs of the Waves … a True, effective Fighting Ship … The Navy was stupid enough to think PT-Boats ineffective … and they were wrong about that too … Lets not go thru the same, tired, wrong argument again …

Part 2:
Operational commanders have expressed the need to mitigate the litoral threat and the world has witnessed how even superpowers can be humiliated and harmed without meaningful retaliation in this strategic environment.
We need to develop joint capabilities to counter this threat but not let our desire to succeed run amuck and place us at increased risk.
Great warfare commanders state this LCS is not the likely answer but the progress in developing the hardware and tactics born of this project are significant and should continue. Look at the previously rewarded practices of limiting full scale production to just a couple units until they can be run through the paces of work ups to measure their effectiveness as a model to emulate. My fellow countrymen and women deserve our best support if we place them in harm’s way. LCS is not the answer today.

I agree on the building of new FFGs based on the FFG-7 design upgraded.

JUST MABEY, someone can get it right on a better budget.

40 knots has nothing to do with it – that’s actually fast for a ship, and since missiles go Mach 2+, you’ll never outrun a missile anyway. It’s all the other problems the ship has – including the supposed inability of the guns to fire accurately while the ship is maneuvering at high-speed, lack of serious armament, inability to take a punch and survive, etc., that make it a dud. The problem is that we need a big group of smaller combatants to take over the role of the retiring PERRY-class frigates (which had their own problems). This ship is not the answer.

It never ceases to amaze me why we spend so much on a project over so many years only to find out it has become obsolete or doesn’t work after spend a zillion dollars to get to that point. I am not sure who thinks of these ideas and doesn’t crunch it out on paper long before. These people have to be problem seekers before solvers. Who would we fighting with these or any of our platforms. Russia?

I quite agree. I am not a vet but it seems that we spend money on things only to benefit some political agenda or to line someone’s pocket. As a consequence there is nothing left to take care of the rest of this country or its citizens vet or non vet alike. 90% of the population struggles from day to day while the rest seem to have many yachts and airplanes and off shore bank accounts and lots of houses. Vets fought wars for those people.

Spend the money on some more Virginia class SSN’s.If the shipdrivers cannot handle forty foot channels they should go back to the USNA and borrow the PC trainers.

The LCS program was in full speed before Obama was elected…

It’s called GREED…

O.k first off we are the Navy…not the cost guard. You can’t ride out a storm in the North Atlantic on a coast guard cutter. So smaller really isn’t an option. So if you want better, why not look at what’s worked in the past and just build upon that design. The best ships the Navy has ever built was their Battle Ships. Simple and effective. I’m not saying we need battle ships, but the design has lasted and proven it self over and over again. K.I.S.S… the meaning simple. Quit over thinking things and over engineering everything. I know warfare has changed, but give us something that works.

Wow, just wow

dude, putting a nuclear reactor in something is more complicated than drawing a box on the outline of a ship and writing “NUCLEAR REACTOR” on it

Sell them to whoever wants them now! Before they find out what POS these things are!!

As a oler Navy man,a good idea often comes out of bad tactics. I was a radarman on a carrier and remember the f-14 and outher aircraft that were not great, but they sure could kick ***s when needed. Now that I look at the newer ships and listen to commanders that retire and earn big(really big) bucks for working for the people who make bigger bucks by buying their way into the building of our fleets that are useless. I see lie after lie from polititions about what we need. The army dosen’t wan the tanks but polititions do. Who wins, not the people that know what they need. That shows you what kind of circus our governerment runs. If every vertern would look at the record of everyone they vote for then we rule. Look at voteing records for Vets, military, who gets what contract and why? Thats a start, GO VETS

Wow, lots of people here redesigning everything. I never knew designing advanced systems for the military was so simple!

“Just install a VLS and twelve CIWS units, use a nucke plant for pwr” oh wow, that’s brilliant! Now why didn’t *WE* think of that? Guess we’re just a bunch of dummies.

All these negative comments must be coming from Republican conservatives. Any new program/weapon system needs work out the kinks. It will prove itself in the next little skirmish we get into.

We do know that we have problems but please don’t get a divorce because “the girl smells when sh goes into the toilet” there are different ways to clear these things up. Everything that has been mentioned about how inadequate the performance is, is also the way to fix it. This cost will be less than scraping the entire project just because you have 15 years to meet those expectations. Joe Frazier nor Mohammad Ali became the best fighters over night nor did they do it in months. we are hopefully not expecting a war that we will need these futuristic vessels tomorrow so “let’s stay married” in spite of the little things that makes no real difference if you work on them NOW!

I had the great opportunity to go into “the Gun Navy” and retire from “the Missile Navy” i can guarantee you that there were lots of changes there but look at us now!

Those frigates would be the equivalent to WW2 cruisers.

What makes anyone believe this malAdministration is interested in maintaining parity, superiority or even survivability? Every indication is that this malAdministration’s goals are directly opposite all three outcomes. We find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to apologize to all those who sacrificed so much to protect us from foreign tyrants, only to have the enemy pop up within our own gates, heralded by millions of no-information voters.

Seems to me the Brits learned about aluminum superstructures in the Falklands campaign. Did we not pick up on that result to HMS Sheffield?

Here’s another weakness for LCS: it can not do underway replenishment-fuel RAS-F.
Short legs and must go in port to fuel. USS COLE in Aden all over again

I was in ATSG and I can tell you that a ship of war should be able to undergo a shock test. Why? Cause the bad guys are shooting at us and they are water mines, torpedoes out there. I know the FFS,FFG,DD,DDG, and CG are torpedoe catchers for the Aircraft Carries. Those ships have been proven to catch more than one torpedoe or direct hit. Can these ships do the same? I know the anserw but it’s way above my pay grade. Maybe if Congress have their kids in the military we can get equipment that WE CAN BE PROUDE of.

The picture and story at the link clearly show that your information is fabricated nonsense, that just serves to obfuscate any real criticisms based in facts. http://​www​.msc​.navy​.mil/​s​e​a​l​i​f​t​/​2​0​0​9​/​j​u​n​e​/​k​a​n​a​wha

…only 2 types of ships in the Navy…submarines and targets.…a silent service greeting :)

The philosophy behind this ship was that we no longer needed much of a blue water Navy. That thinking started just about the time the Chinese sub popped up in the middle of one of our carrier battle groups. Duh! No need for a blue water Navy? The next phase of thinking was that the LCS didn’t need much manning, because we didn’t need to do much damage control for a “throwaway ship.” At each stop of social change in the Navy we leave logical and courageous leadership behind. We’re putting all our energy in social changes such as same sex relations and females in places where they don’t have the physical strength to do the job effectively (note, I NEVER said they had less brains!). The Navy is the tip of the spear of at keeping up with the societal trends, but didn’t contribute much to the last two wars. Let’s get back to basics.

Duck?!? You need to do a little research on reactors before you try hustling anybody on them. The term is steam.

Beg to disagree. There is a replica of the Jackass frigate HMS Rose here in San Diego which draws only 13 feet forward, 14 feet aft. Such frigates could enter shallow (read here littoral) waters in harbors and up rivers. After “seeing” the enemy they would then proceed to sea with the “Enemy in Sight” flag on the Main Truk, if necessary, to get the word out. Almost any of today’s naval vessels can do that electronically, not just WWII cruisers. So, back to the blog entry from TJ1962, what is the answer to today’s cry to “give me more frigates.”?

Are you referring to Admiral Nelson? I addressed what I think would be the answer today below. How close to correct am I?

In today’s news is data stating that the deficit has again begun to shrink as it was in a previous administration. As a submariner I hope the result is a reversal of all the harm the sequestration has done to every service. But, mostly I hope that we can educate the Congress that we must build the OHIO replacement FBMs and more Virginia class SSNs. The latter are excellent LCS vessels without the exposure of the LCS we are building (or are we?) My point is this; why build a Littoral Combat vessel for the surface when it can be done more safely submerged?

I agree. So why are we building the LCS (a target) and not more VA class SSNs?

The Navy is building and deploying UUVs which do all the stuff the minesweepers did.

This is not a SONAR platform. High speed, large wake, and loudest ship in the fleet. No sound isolation onboard. Ship is so lightweight a Sonar dome would not work. ASW is not a viable option for this platform. Scrap this money pit why we still can.

Duck!?! Here’s the problem; Lockheed Martin is trying to push a ship that runs on large gas turbine’s; while the Navy is moving to drop in reactors. Either nobody is communication; or the LCS misappropriation scandal is really big.

launch air strikes from? Carriers are extremly vital for our airpower advantage. Cancel the F-35’s?? We need
to upgrade our aging aircraft to maintain our superiority over our enemys. You must be a liberal.

Retired Navy

Do you think we could even MAKE a ship that would outrun a missile? Aside from that, I do agree, though, that lack of offensive and defensive capabilities is a serious issue. I’m glad someone in the chain of command, and high up enough to be heard, had the cajones to tell it like it is! We need combatant ships that are truly combatants: “armed and dangerous”.

I always wanted to refit the LHAs, turning the flight deck into massive VLS systems and putting a squadron of PHMs in the well deck, as a mother ship.

I tried to post a comment. No remarks of secrets were used. The comment was not allowed. Wonder why. Ask those who did not allow my comment to be publish.

I find it hard to believe a Navy report on this ship and whether or not it is working as planned. The first LCS platform has now just arrived in it’s forward deploy location (Singapore) and has likely not even patrolled to the straights yet.

As far as Senator McCain is concern, I don’t care what that Traitor has to say on any subject, specially when it deals with the Navy.

FT1/ss USN Retired

40 knots is pretty fast actually for a warship like that… nice try though

Don’t even think about it; you can’t drink JP5; you cant breath the carbon exhaust from from JP5; you cant eat the algae that grown’s in it. The reason that they use it in aircraft is because; plants thrive on carbon, and the emissions are less than a vulcano. The cost of water is not negotiable.

Sounds like that piece of garbage 1052 Class FF/DE that I was assigned to in the 70’s. The only thing it was good for was burning fuel!!

There just seem to be soooo many things that could have been done for less that worked so well in the past. I.e.;;; helo launch. use twin “in deck” rails with pilot discon. cables from hanger to launch. What happened to the auto spread of main rotors? Make use of hull tunnels for launch/recovery of submersibles & more, use a slide ramp for aft water launches, pre test the gun modules on a truck in the backwoods first. Been on shakedown cruises CVA style. Spare parts on a sister ship invaluable. AND, paint the dang hull for the videos, red peeling, really? What protects all that electronic display and wiring from a single bullet? It just goes on and on.

You can obviously show your prejudiced nature and make racial slurs if you must. What it comes down to is several Americans concerned about the safety of our military and overspending when they need so many other things as well voice their individual opinions and concerns. Believe it or not, “conservative” simply means knowing the bank statement has to balance or we go broke; and troops need to come home as safely as possible at the end of the run.

“The major problems with the LCS program in the report was the amount of firepower on board as well as its manning. Perez questioned whether the LCS could sustain an attack in combat and respond.”

- Whoa! These are brand-new problems. Why are these just surfacing now?

Oh, never mind.

This is the result of outsourcing everything out, you loose the ability to build things for yourself, because somebody has been building them for you. And Nicky, we don’t need European Ships, what we need is to bring back our means of building war ships.….I thought you right wingers didn like the Europeans so much.….

We can not cancel what they have started, as will cost even more money then allowing them to build these P.O.S F-35,and this contraption of a ship.

We have to be the only country that pays for development with a contract to build something that is on paper. They defense company’s love building for the military making billions build crap.

And the USS Stark.
Excoets and aluminum ships do not mix well together, period.
It doesn’t matter the nationality.

But there again, we know at least once that a Perry-class frigate could absorb 2 AShMs and still stay afloat and imp off to the safety of a friendly port.

Perhaps as was done during the development of the Bradley fighting vehicle, we actually lob real-life (not simulated) live adversary ordnance at one and see just what happens to an LCS hull.…?

ENOUGH ALREADY…turn the LCS’s over to the Coast Guard for harbor patrols. Get rid of contractors designing naval ships. Bring back BUSHIPS to design in house. Build ships to mil standards NOT civilian standards. Over power and over arm them ‚man them with enough crew and let them go in harms way. Every retired “zero” should be prohibited from working for a defense contractor or consultant for live. Let them go out and play golf or what ever. As for the F35 — newer radars can defeat their stelef design. Get rid of the train of civilian contractors who maintain commissioned ships and let the sailors deal with ANY problems. I feel like my 23 plus years of naval service, enlisted SCPO, BS and MS„ always believing my Navy usually was on course and on track has taken a BIG hit. MMCS(SW) USN Ret.

I agree with this concept and suggest it’s critics are overthinking it. ESSM and maybe an Otto-Malera gun would significantly address the firepower shortcomings. ESSM does not need a full blown AGEIS array. And if not ESSM, what about RAM? If not a 76mm gun, how about a CWIS?

Hmm, Independence hull design…no bridge wing…has little security type cameras facing rear, but they are VERY old technology and are not able to be moved/controlled at all. Radar is in front of mast, makes for a huge blind spot on the radar aft. In other words the ship is blind in the rear. At least put up to date controlable cameras aft, but if some enterprising sailor were to do this on their own, the ship would flunk INSURV inspection. Go figure! This, the apparent lack of sufficient weapons, and crew size can all be fixed relatively easily and this would be a fantastic hull, but the issues do need to be addressed early on.

Yes, we all want more big, highly capable toys that fire the latest whatevers and go for some eye-popping unit cost, made worse by the fact that we can afford many of them so no economies of scale, etc. and need to stay in deep water. And more subs, yup, they will be effective against swarming patrol boats that are devastating any attempt at landings or to fight off shallow draft subs. And of course they come at really bargain basement prices.

Add more guns and missiles aboard, weight and stability are only two issues. Speed and space are two others — where do we put them and what do we give up to get them OR do we just redisign the existing hulls to accommodate them. And OBTW who are we fighting with them? Littoral implies shallow water — the war they are fighting is the war against shallow water subs, mines, and swarms. And with a limited crew, who maintains them, the gun and missile fairy? If not, sounds like more berthing, etc. — add a more feet to the ship., need bigger engines, more fuel, etc. etc. And the uniformed comment to do more ASW give up minesweeping? These are to be our minesweepers.

NSC were designed for drug interdiction, boarding, patrol, etc. European frigates were designed for coastal patrol. None of those are an LCS mission.

The vast majority of the comments apply to LCS 1 which is one of two brand new hull designs. Let’s give both designs a chance to perform before we jump back into the big super capable $1B plus destroyer that can’t sweep mines, go after shallow water subs or effectively fight off swarms while we are doing a landing.

Scrap the LCS. Go back to the cheaper models, and have more of them. We beat the Germans in WWII because, even though their Panthers and Tigers were much better than our Shermans, we outnumbered them by about 20 to 1.


No. Just no. FFGs are useless, and too much ship for the capability. Replace the FFGs with one of the European Corvette designs and a bevy of missile boats. Instead of trying to get all-in-one designs, buy sets of Corvettes that focus on specific jobs, but use a common hull. We don’t need our smaller ships to do everything in one hull. We do need a lot more hulls.
Put LCS on the far back burner, use a couple of decom’d amphibs to test out the modules in their well decks, and trickle the money for that. Eventually LCS and it’s modules will mature, or they won’t, but they’ll no longer be the sexy new must-have toy that’s so hard to remove from the budget.

Excuse me? PT Boats? Explicitly expendable, which is why, in a draft-era Navy, they were volunteer-only. But PT boats were also extremely cheap, compared to this abortion.

There is breaking news on this front.
THe US Navy is no longer putting Nuclear Reactors on anything smaller than an Aircraft Carrier. The last Surface Ship other than a Carrier was the USS Arkansas CGN-41 which was commissioned in October of 1980. There have been NO other nuclear surface ships built since then so the Navy is NOT “moving to drop in reactors” on other ships.
Actually, the US Navy of 1980, outside of the Nuclear Cruisers and Carriers was primarily powered by Steam Propulstion with higher performance ships using 1200PSI (oil fired) Steam plants and lower performance ships mostly using 600PSI (Oil Fired) steam.
Fast Forward to the US Navy of 2013 where, outside of the Nuclear Carriers, is primarily powered by Gas Turbines with some lower performance ships being powered by Diesels. There are a handful of non-nuclear steam powered ships left but it is not being put on ships currently being built.

Tri hull ship too big. Just a missile sponge. Neither has enough firepower.
Rail gun, please keep working on it. Deploy it on a larger ship, get it out there. At the current 60 mile range, out ranges all other guns, and many missiles on small boats.

I do not want my friends and/or relative to serve on an expandable ship… with minumum additional upgrade the Burke will be much better than LCS.

The LCS engineering plant is a striking example of unreliability — MT30 MTBF (< 1000 hours) compared to LM2500 MTBF (> 25,000 hours) is a no — brainer. This is just one example of why this is a terrible high cost idea at a time when the DDG alternative (though perhaps not optimized for the littoral) is far better.

Well; here’s a poke at you; and your gunna choke on it too; Navy could have 30 Robert H Smith Class DM’s, with Plasma Ion Steam Turbines, for the same cost of an F-35.

Back in the day a new ship design was tested by the lead ship of the class. I helped build and test USS Ticonderoga CG47. Through all the sea trials, Gitmo, Rosey Roads where civilians fired drone missiles at us and we either shot them down or got hit. A couple of missiles missed but 99% were brought down by SM2’s . Only one leaker and CIWS took it down off our port quarter. Then every inspection the CNO could come up with we had to pass. Not all at first since it was a new design. But in six months from commissioning the ship and crew were certified war ready. Six months later that was put to the test off of Beirut. The lessons learned were passed on to the following ships in class. The seventh and following ships were upgraded to SPY1B, steel superstructures and the MK 26 was replaced by MK 41 VLS. Contractors need to look at off the shelf systems. They are tested and true. New whiz bang systems must be fully tested on a ship platform before being used on a new class. These shipyards want to sell the Navy a new Star Wars type ship should pay for and build a prototype and let a select crew test it fully, pushing it past its limits before buying a new design.

How can you say that Zumwalts dont do anything, when the 1st one hasnt even hit the water yet?

A heavy cruiser design ie; St. Louis with missels, phalanx for defence, one 4 gun 8 inch turrent , several chain guns and maybe less armor plating with improved steam turbines and boiler systems would probably make this a combat vessle that can goe places and do things that the new fangled light weight ships can’t.

“New whiz bang systems must be fully tested on a ship platform before being used on a new class. These shipyards want to sell the Navy a new Star Wars type ship should pay for and build a prototype and let a select crew test it fully, pushing it past its limits before buying a new design.”

Agreed. Prototyping is essential to fielding mature technologies and controlling costs. I think the Navy is too squeamish to do like the Cold War days and have a lot of one-offs and demonstrators in the fleet. Instead, we’ve taken rapid prototyping so far that we are essentially choosing program winners based on abstractions on top of demonstrator aircraft, then we get all upset when all we really have is the demonstrator we *saw* and not the finished product as promised.

Only one of the LCS ship types has the MT30’s (and the MT30 is going on the QE2 and Zumwalt, by the way).

Yes, you are right. But it is not only firepower and manning, which by the way, every Sailor with a functioning brain new was deficient, the LCS has other logistical and technical issues, not mention supply and port availability. I questioned a four-star a few years about this ship, and his answers will inadequate and defensive of a design that cannot withstand many of the war-fighting environments it is supposed to. Art this point, and given the cost overruns, it is irresponsible to press on. This is almost as big a joke as nuclear-powered destroyers of 35 years ago. That is all.

There are two competing LCS designs. There is nothing in Mr. Hoffman’s article telling what stage of the trials this one is in, or whether this is just RADM Perez’s opinion, or how the two designs compare, or who wrote the specs for LCS. During the late 1960s, I was in a group that was developing all-terrain air cushion vehicles (ACVs) for over water and over land riverine warfare, and the cautious Navy development process was frustrating. Before we really got started, the Vietnam war ended and so did our contract . About forty years later we finally saw ACVs deployed. Then during the 1970s, I was part of AEGIS development, and even that high priority program took over ten years to get through all the trials. So be patient, or change the Navy’s qualification process. But be aware that no matter what the process, politics gets involved, and everybody becomes a development expert, Including all the good folks commenting here.

are we paying for another mark 14 torpedo boondoggle? Where is the realistic testing?

The naysayers have always been with us since David Bushnell developed the first submarine and they said it would never work, or when they launched the first plane off the deck of the Langley and there were those who said it would never be an effective platform for a fighting ship. They said they needed more battleships back then and less of these worthless and expensive ships that would never be able to carry the fight to an enemy. Well, here wego again, and I’m sure that when all the bugs are worked out and these sleek, fast and maneuverable ships start taking out pirates, or stopping terrorist attacks, all the naysayers will jump on the bandwagon and start telling how they knew these ships were the future of our Navy.

The sailors hate these ships and no one is listening to them. The CPO mess on down tell the truth and the upper command just say yes it is a good program. What a waste of money. We could do better with a new cruiser or FFG type platform with VLS. AEGIS can do it all so why these? Contractors do the repairs because sailors are just operators. When has that ever been cheaper? Never! Since we started these stop at 6 and no more and cut your losses. I did 20 years in the navy and I would have gotten out before going on this big failure. Hey wait, we could actually stop this program and pay our civilian work force so they would not have to go on furloughs. Hm…that would make sense so it will not happen.

Nobody’s saying that they can’t fight. People are just saying that they will suffer terribly.

They will probably be more battlecruiser than battleship. They fight well, but only in certain situations. And in others, they’ll pop like a zit. Maybe it’ll lead to something more interesting; but who knows?

Do your research. The UK lost 5 ships during the Falklands. All were steel. Two had aluminum superstructures. Of the two lost with aluminum superstructures; both were lost catosrophically within the steel hulls.…one with a direct bomb hit and the other while EOD were attempting to defuse a bomb.

The Belknap had an Al superstructure and a steel hull, and I suspect that incident is why the Navy is so squeamish about aluminum. Of course, the Belknap didn’t actually go down, and not that many people died.

The bigger problem is destroyers and frigates are truly tin cans in an era of powerful anti-ship missiles and relatively accurate use of bombs. Aluminum or not, a hit will be unpleasant.

The governmrnt has NO idea of what a dollar is. Or they do and are giving the rest of us a pile of shit. They spend by the billions, trillions, I spend by what change I have . If I have any. Another great example of gov, industrial waste. What is wrong with with our ships now ?? Spent many yrs in the Navy, our equipment worked.

And you have priced this out in current year dollars from existing or willing producers? I doubt it.
Taking the price paid for something 50 or 60 years ago and ASSUMING that it would be the same today is ridiculous

OK. Enough of this nonsense. Littoral means lakes, rivers and close sea coast area. Now forgive my ignorance but this area of responsibility falls under the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security. It’s not in the USN mission statement unless enemy forces invade the USA by shore. At that time the Coast Guard is transferred to the US Navy and DOD. So give these things that have been built to the Coast Guard and have the Navy go back to projecting sea power worldwide.

If the Navy must have a new weapons

platform try a new type battleship. Take a super container ship sized hull. Use electric powered omni-directional thrusters. Power can be generated by nuclear, diesel or gas turbine powered generators. Then using tried and battle tested current use, off the shelf components to outfit it with weapons and sensors. Ship this size could hold

around 500 VLS missiles of all types of loads. Aegis combat suite. Well deck able to hold eight LCAC’s. A battalion of Marines. Fully equipped trauma facility for at least 200 beds, 10 operating rooms. Gunnery can be provided by dusting off and updating the 8″/55 caliber Mark 71 gun. A 5″/61

lwg. Then do something the military rarely does. Instead of the 25mm Bushmaster locate four M1A2 tank turrets. One on each quarter. Great for close in threat. No need for remote fire control. Fully stabilized. LRF. 120mm smoothbore with multiple round types.

Ability to mount an M240 coax, an M2HB or 7.62 mini gun. Mount these on sponsons. Only power they need is 24 volt DC. A flight deck on the forecastle with elevator. Ability to launch, land and store a multitude of aircraft types as needed per mission requirements. No need to build more than four to cover the Seven Seas. Can be manned a blue and gold crews like the boomers.

I would rather see twice to three times as many Aegis Guided Missile Frigates (at about the same cost) full of ESSMs … and other things.

Aside from not meeting combat expectations, Austal’s futuristic tri-hull is just plain ugly and not practical for maneuvering unassisted in small ports. I’m with the poster ‘Nicky’ on taking better designs from the Europeans or South Koreans.

Pull all of the Battle Wagons out of Moth Balls, re-fit them and then Kick Ass. Solution solved!

The Royal Navys Type 26, Yes, but the others, No, look at the stated ranges? They’re Mediterranean or Baltic/North Sea coastal defence frigates, not long ranged fleet defence frigates.

The Royal Navy still keeps global deployment capability, but other Euro countries have shorter ranged defence obligations, The UK is part of the Five Power alliance with Singapore et al, has interests in the Falklands, New Zealand, and all around the world. Not just in Europe itself.

The British frigates would suit the US navy global presence needs, or the ANZAC class variants of the MEKO 200 class which were specially modified for longer ranges than the stock German design of the MEKO 200.

40 knot requirement is one of causes of LCS’ problems.

Problem is, LCS as-is is far worse than Perry.

Time to kick the dead horse.

The other option is armored box launchers, which were used on the old CGN’s and the BB’s if VLS is not an option. The advantage of ABL is that it will be available in full-length package, and going with a Mk 41 might require going to short-length systems that only fire Standards.

The sailors hate these units. The Navy should put their big boy pants on and just say they made a mistake. The money saved could stop furloughs and pay freezes for the sailor and civilans that support them. BZ RADM Perez!

When has it ever been cheaper to pay contractors to do the maintenance vs. the sailors? Refurbishing the FFGs would have been a better idea. Who wants duty every 3 days when in home port? There is a morale booster. Re-enlist to get off is what I hear from friends still in. Or the sailors just get out.

The only ship we could make that could outrun a missile would be a SPACEship! :)

Any ship can be a Submarine, ONCE!

Quit wasting my tax dollars on this piece of crap. This is sort of like our new medical care system. Get into effect we will test it as we go along or pass it then read it. Oh what a waste we have let ourselves get into. Of course if anyone complains they kiss their ass good bye. Stand by for a RAM.

Even if they do add some real weapons to the LCS…it is built so weak that the Navy has already determined it cannot sustain even one significant hit and continue fighting. LCS is a deathtrap for its crew if it has to engage anything more robust than a somali pirate boat.

Funny how these boats are cheaper than the 634 mil dollar obamacare web site!

Who made the radar for this ship? Ray thee On. Hmmm. Another not working radar by Ray thee On.

Personally, I would base a New Frigate from the US Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter Design. I would use the National Security cutter design as a basis for a New Frigate.

Great idea the government should read.

The LCS concept was sound when developed 20 years ago. We wanted to project combat power ashore from a sea we “owned”. It was the Navy’s contribution to a “land fight” since no opposing naval power existed in the 1990s to draw our attention. The LCS is not a warship and was not required to fight another warship. The intend was to use LCS in secondary areas to concentrate our expensive warships against hostile players. The LCS can function well today in “showing the flag” in the South Atlantic. The LCS can function well in the Gulf once the mission modules are available. However, I never understood how the Navy came up with a requirement for 52 LCSs, even if they replace all the MCMs in service.

Today’s operational environment is different from the 1990s. We must once again prepare to fight for “sea control” in Europe and Asia from potential adversaries building modern warships. The Navy needs a small surface combatant armed with the LRASM that can fight against hostile frigates and corvettes armed with longer-range anti-ship missiles than we have.

We must either 1) convert the LCS into a warship by arming them with VLS tubes and the ASW module as suggested, 2) or quickly start building a design with these capabilities purchased from a NATO partner. We can’t afford any $37B program that doesn’t contribute to a fight.

I’ve never been in the navy, but this need seems so obvious to me. Reminds me of the situation during the 1970s when the Soviet Navy had anti-ship missiles in large numbers and we had none. Adding the new Harpoon missile to our existing warships was a low-cost “game-changer”.

I think the biggest military boondoggle is that F-35 fighter program. Why does the U.S. need to have a fighter many generations beyond what any potential enemy will have? We already have the best fighter planes in the world, along with the best trained pilots. What was wrong with the twin engined F-22 as an air superiority fighter? What is wrong with the Navy continuing to update the very successful F-18 series? Also a twin engine aircraft. Why can’t the Marine Corps continue to build and update the Harrier jet? All proven platforms. Seems like we could gotten much more for our money by doing that than by trying to do the old McNamera F-111 type program of one plane fits all needs. That didn’t work, and I’m not sure this F-35 will work either.

I disagree with some of your assessment. The RAH-22 Comanche was an excellent design that focused to much on stealth. If the stealth requirements were limited to what was affordable only, then we would have a great scout attack helicopter in service today. Its small size compared to the Apache would have made it strategically deployable also. The Crusader should have been built also. While not easy to deploy strategically, two Crusaders would have been more capable that 8 Paladins. Their longer range would have increased the value of the Excalibur rounds also, providing far greater target coverage with no loss of accuracy. The main problem with the LCS is its pathetic weapons and sensors fit, which could be fixed if the Navy gets serious about developing useful mission modules. Based on the ships small size, it is not designed to fight all comers alone and win, but it can be useful covering important, but less hostile seas. A larger multi-purpose vessel would be very helpful in supporting the LCS mission.

“Lawmakers wanted details why the U.S. should continue to invest in the $37 billion program to continue building the next-generation surface ship fleet.”



NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.