DEFENSE: Why They’re Re-thinking the LCS Fleet

February 26, 2014 at 11:39 pm Leave a comment

Trying Something New

The U.S. Navy has a nearly silent TV commercial that notes 70 percent of the world is covered by water, 80 percent of the people in the world live near water and 90 percent of all trade around the world travels by water.

The ad concludes with a massive aircraft carrier cruising past. Get the message?

But the Navy and the Marine Corps have both acknowledged that a lot of those people living near water reside in cities on the coast or along rivers where big ships can’t go. In future conflicts that could pose an access problem.

The Littoral Combat Ship USS Freedom (LCS 1) conducting sea trials off the coast of Southern California in 2013. The Freedom variant of LCS is built by Lockheed Martin.  (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class James Evans)

The Littoral Combat Ship USS Freedom (LCS 1) conducting sea trials off the coast of Southern California in 2013. The Freedom variant of LCS is built by Lockheed Martin. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class James Evans)

The solution was supposed to be the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) – a vessel small and light enough to naviagte shallow coastal waters, but carrying enough armament to do the jobs of chasing submarines and clearing away mines in “premissive environments” where the opposition isn’t packing a lot firepower — think: pirate strongholds and failed states without an air force or long range missiles.

Since the $32 billion program began in 2002, the LCS development has encountered numreous problems including cost overruns and a complex competition that led to construction of two separate designs by Lockheed Martin and Austal (an Australian company). There have also been firepower, crew manning and vulnerability issues. Critics say it is too lightly armed and armored to survive battle in a contested area, like the waters off China or North Korea.

“LCS is not expected to be survivable in high-intensity combat,” according to a 2013 report by the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, because the LCS design requirements do not include “survivability features necessary to conduct sustained combat operations in a major conflict as expected for the Navy’s other surface combatants.”

Facing severe post-Afghanistan budget cuts, the Pentagon wants to stop acquisition of both versions of the ship – at 32 vessels instead of the planned 52.

The USS Independence (LCS 2) off the coast of Southern California in 2012. The trimaran variant is built by Austal. (U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Jan Shultis)

The USS Independence (LCS 2) off the coast of Southern California in 2012. The trimaran variant is built by Austal.
(U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Jan Shultis)

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Monday (February 24) that he was concerned the Navy was “relying too heavily on the LCS” to achieve its long-term goals for expanding the size of the fleet to 300 ships to meet demands for global presence.

“We need to closely examine whether the LCS has the independent protection and firepower to operate and survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the Asia Pacific,” Hagel said, noting that if the program is allowed to grow to 52 ships, the lightly armed LCS would represent one-sixth of the future 300-ship Navy.

“Given continued fiscal restraints, we must direct future shipbuilding resources toward platforms that can operate in every region and along the full spectrum of conflict,” Hagel concluded.

So he’s directed the Navy to submit alternative proposals for procuring “a capable and lethal small surface combatant, generally consistent with the capabilities of a frigate.

Those proposals — to include a completely new design, existing ship designs and a modified LCS design — are due back to Hagel later this year in time for planning next year’s budget request.

The initial version of the of the Oliver Hazard Perry- class  guided missile frigate (FFG-7). (1979 U.S. Navy file photo)

The initial version of the of the Oliver Hazard Perry- class guided missile frigate (FFG-7).
(1979 U.S. Navy file photo)

Speaking at a defense industry conference in Washington today, Admiral James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, defended the decision, calling it smart “to look at what else can we do” with the existing two LCS designs “or with a different concept to make sure we are covered in the future..”

However the new vessel turns out, Winnefeld told Bloomberg’s BGOV Defense Summit, he thinks there is great potential for it to perform additional jobs, including strike and special operations missions, as well as offering a potential platform for the Marines.

But the admiral indicated it was too soon to count the LCS out completely. “I think the LCS is going through it’s V-22 phase,” he said, harking back to the criticisms of the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft during its development, especially after several fatal crashes.

From Africa to Afghanistan to East Asia, V-22s are now very popular with area commanders. “There’s a demand signal out there in the real world today – I wish I could tell you all about it – for V-22s. I wish we had more out there,” Winnefeld said.

WORTH NOTING:

Our friend and colleague, Aviation Week’s Mike Fabey, is the winner of the 2014 Timothy White Award, given by the American Business Media association to a journalist who demonstrates “bravery, integrity, passion and quality of product.” Fabey, Aviation Week’s Naval Editor, was cited for his work detailing design, fabrication and operational problems with the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship.  To see more, click here.

 

About these ads

Entry filed under: National Security and Defense, Naval Warfare, News Developments, Technology, Unconventional Warfare, Weaponry and Equipment. Tags: , , , , , , , .

DEFENSE: Good News for Special Ops, Bad News for Warthogs FRIDAY FOTO (February 28, 2014)

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

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Calendar

February 2014
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728  

Most Recent Posts


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 354 other followers

%d bloggers like this: