First off, I'd immediately cancel the contracts for any LCS/FF whose construction has not begun. Next, I'd beef up NAVSEA and restore cut billets, then I'd ban Powerpoint Navy-wide.
What is a common definition of insanity? Repeatedly trying the same thing over and over....and expecting a different result. Yeah, let's build slightly different LCS. NO! Tweaking the two current sub-optimum LCS designs with a gun here, a missile there, some minimum armor there.......only helps the two current contractors. Putting lipstick on a pig does not change the fact that it's still a pig. Start from scratch.....borrow heavily from European design ideas.
How did we get here? The original requirement was for a small fast ship to combat FAC/FIAC boats. The Streetfighter concept was the plan. So far, so good. A replacement MCM was needed to replace aging mine force. OK. A littoral combatant was thought necessary....whatever the heck that meant. Transformation was big buzzword. And it all morphed into a larger ship than Streetfighter that different mission packages could be bolted on at will. And limit the crew size to 75.....people are expensive! Both were terrible ideas in practice.
The resulting LCS can be used for anti-piracy type missions, partnering with low naval capability countries, towing targets.....so they're not totally useless.
High speed ships are of no use in ASW or MIW. Both are very slow processes.
-As the LCS uses all offboard, remote systems in mine warfare.....any lily pad glorified barge will do. A much cheaper HSV for example.
-Shallow water ASW? What was the requirement? A DDG does have a draft of ~31'...greater than the ~13' of an LCS. So the LCS can go places a BURKE cannot. My question is: how many submarines are in seas less than 50' deep? And the LCS primary sub hunting gear is a towed array.....which forces the LCS out to deeper water than a BURKE!
Continuing with two LCS classes has been a current problem, and will be ongoing maintenance and supply nightmare.
Lastly, the LCS is not all that cheap. Almost every number quoted for these ships omits the cost of the mission packages, which were running $200-250MM each.
The Navy may well choose to go with a modified version of one (god forbid, two) of the current LCS designs. But I think there must be better options (blogs like the USNI and CDR Salamander have brought up many other options) than just recycling what L-M or Austal thinks.
Capacity is important, not just capability. Numbers matter. There will not be enough "high end" ships to go around.....and the Navy needs to come up with a more useful design than LCS redux. Over to you, NAVSEA.
: OK fair enough.
: Considering that it is a requirement for
: 21st Century naval warfare to have a
: high-low mix of vessels, the Burke, and its
: eventual follow on being the high side, what
: would you suggest that the low side be in
: terms of capability, survivability, cost,
: and a place to build them (other than
: Alabama and Wisconsin - (both yards
: optimized for the construction of such
: There has been a lot of ink spilled over the
: LCS program, and most of the critical
: comments directed toward them are valid (and
: probably correctible over time) but it seems
: to me that the critics offer no real
: solutions to the problem, low relative cost
: and high number required), or they just want
: to build a Burke (lite) and call it a
: I would welcome seeing your constructive
: --Previous Message--
: Amazingly unimaginative variants of the
: pathetic LCS by the two current LCS
: What is needed is a radically improved ship,
: designed from scratch. One that is actually
: mission capable, with weapons systems that
: work. Whoever marketed LCS as a ship where
: we could interchange an ASW kill package or
: a mine warfare ship or a worthwhile surface
: combatant in days (or ever) ought to hung
: from a yardarm. The need for a 40+ knot ship
: in ASW or MIW is puzzling.
: Otherwise, yeah, let's replicate the failed
: LCS, make a couple changes, do some new
: PowerPoint slides.....and call them
: --Previous Message--
« Back to index