NEWS LCS buy reduced, funding moved to other programs.

[Brett327]

Are you taking about CNO Richardson? I haven't had any interaction with him, but my experiences listening to 4-stars speak is that 75% of them are full of standard issue talking points and the other 25% have something interesting and/or provocative to say. I'll also say that I've seen CJCS Dempsey speak a lot. Most of the time, he was on, other times he was off, so I guess my point is that I wouldn't make up my mind on any individual based on a single interaction.

 

[phrogdriver]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Survivability is directly related to displacement, reserve boyancy, and the allowable weight of equipment. If the Navy wants small, fast ships then they won't be survivable. Similarly, if the Navy wants large, heavy ships they won't be cheap or fast. There are tradeoffs that have to be made based on simple physics.

But this goes back to the issue of the nebulous role of the LCS. The ship was never intended to fight blue water surface combatants, we have other platforms to do that job.

True, but then they shouldn't constitute such a significant portion of the USN's end strength. It's almost as if we are just building useless ships, just to keep the fleet at around 300.

 

[jmcquate]

Are you taking about CNO Richardson? I haven't had any interaction with him, but my experiences listening to 4-stars speak is that 75% of them are full of standard issue talking points and the other 25% have something interesting and/or provocative to say. I'll also say that I've seen CJCS Dempsey speak a lot. Most of the time, he was on, other times he was off, so I guess my point is that I wouldn't make up my mind on any individual based on a single interaction.

Ya Richardson, should have made that clear. Friday..........scotch.

 

[Hair Warrior]

I'm no Navy intel analyst (yet), but it sounds like the faults against the LCS lie with its diminished firepower (not very "distributed lethality" ready), and not the ship itself.

What is stopping us from buying Saab Bofors' RBS-15 Mk3 and doing a couple fire control mods to make it work on an LCS?

OSINT pegs the Mk3 at a 200km range, ECM survivable, and other goodies.

(Or if someone has a better idea than the Mk3 for an off-the-shelf product that will fill the capability gap before DARPA's LRASM matures, I'm all ears.)

The whole point of the LCS was supposed to be modular/swappable mission bays. Here's a prime opportunity to show its flexibility by strapping a Swede missile launcher on the side with some duct tape.

P.S. I am not arguing for or against lowering the number of LCS built. Whether it's 52, 40, or fewer, we might as well make 'em as lethal as possible.

 

[zippy]

I'm no Navy intel analyst (yet), but it sounds like the faults against the LCS lie with its diminished firepower (not very "distributed lethality" ready), and not the ship itself.

What is stopping us from buying Saab Bofors' RBS-15 Mk3 and doing a couple fire control mods to make it work on an LCS? .

Meh, if the ship didn't suck why'd the newest one lose all power and have to be towed into port 3 weeks after it was put to sea.

Congress and the defense industry is stopping us from buying better, foreign weapons. The LCS buy like JSF and C-17 etc were made to feed the defense contractors in congressional districts. No One dares kill a weapon systems that would kill jobs in a district that has an election coming up in the next couple of years.

 

[BigRed389]

I'm no Navy intel analyst (yet), but it sounds like the faults against the LCS lie with its diminished firepower (not very "distributed lethality" ready), and not the ship itself.

What is stopping us from buying Saab Bofors' RBS-15 Mk3 and doing a couple fire control mods to make it work on an LCS?

OSINT pegs the Mk3 at a 200km range, ECM survivable, and other goodies.

(Or if someone has a better idea than the Mk3 for an off-the-shelf product that will fill the capability gap before DARPA's LRASM matures, I'm all ears.)

The whole point of the LCS was supposed to be modular/swappable mission bays. Here's a prime opportunity to show its flexibility by strapping a Swede missile launcher on the side with some duct tape.

P.S. I am not arguing for or against lowering the number of LCS built. Whether it's 52, 40, or fewer, we might as well make 'em as lethal as possible.

Mainly money. Which is a pretty big obstacle.

I'm fairly certain NSM is what will ultimately get chosen for LCS, but this is something that has been delayed for so long because the other modules (MCM, ASW) are getting funding priority.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Meh, if the ship didn't suck why'd the newest one lose all power and have to be towed into port 3 weeks after it was put to sea.

It was a ploy by the MSC to show how valuable Ocean going tugs are.

 

[Hair Warrior]

Mainly money. Which is a pretty big obstacle.

This is why strategy has to drive planning, programming, and execution. Tie your dollars and execution directly to the strategy.

A few hundred million dollars to put a single, functioning RBS-15 Mk3 launcher and missile on every LCS would increase lethality and strike range overnight. These are billion dollar warships. Would we rather have 52 ships without an anti ship missile >5nm range, or 50 ships that all pack a decent punch from afar?

They're tough conversations...but they're conversations Congress can have if we (Big Navy) can determine and articulate how the overall strategy drives our resourcing decisions. We bought the M-249 SAW off-the-shelf from Belgian FN. We're capable of making smart acquisition decisions independent of "Made in USA."

 

[HH-60H]

I'm no Navy intel analyst (yet), but it sounds like the faults against the LCS lie with its diminished firepower (not very "distributed lethality" ready), and not the ship itself.

threadjack/

A couple of points to consider..... As an 1835 you'll never really be an intelligence analyst. Also, Navy intel analysts don't analyze blue they analyze red forces.

/threadjack

 

[Pags]

This is why strategy has to drive planning, programming, and execution. Tie your dollars and execution directly to the strategy.

New capabilities due to new technology can't change strategy?

 

[Hair Warrior]

A couple of points to consider..... As an 1835 you'll never really be an intelligence analyst. Also, Navy intel analysts don't analyze blue they analyze red forces.

Understood. In my day job, I work on the HQ staff officer side of things at the five sided wind tunnel - "How do we spend finite resources to best meet the mission?" I would love to become an 1835 and focus outward on red forces.

The RBS-15 as a weapons system is kinda blue, kinda gray. Sweden's not part of NATO. Even though you'll find a Saab, Volvo, or Ikea couch in every Midwestern county.

 

[Duc'-guy25]

Meh, if the ship didn't suck why'd the newest one lose all power and have to be towed into port 3 weeks after it was put to sea.

If the latest Rhino or Poseidon that rolled off the line shit the bed mid flight because of a bad set of bearings, I don't think we would be saying they sucked collectively. LCS has had a pretty good run operationally with no major engineering faults, (not anymore than other surface combatants at least). I'm not saying these things are the best thing since sliced bread, but its hard to say that they suck due to the fact one broke down. Ships breakdown, it happens.

It was a ploy by the MSC to show how valuable Ocean going tugs are.

So, what's your point? Mission accomplished if you ask me.

They're tough conversations...but they're conversations Congress can have if we (Big Navy) can determine and articulate how the overall strategy drives our resourcing decisions.

They talk about how taxpayer money is wasted by contractors and projects everyday, they're aware. Politicians in the long run are just talk. Unfortunately many would not have the funds to run for office again if they started to actually regulate spending or argue for reasonably priced contracts. If you saw how some of the corporations have a chokehold on defense contracts, you would puke. If you saw how much it cost to have a contractor pull out a valve on a firemain on a surface combatant and replace it, you would want to hang yourself.

One of the issues is how much gets dumped into these projects once they started them. This is how defense contracting work: It's like owning a Ducati, its expensive at first but you think its awesome to have it so its worth the price tag, then you realize there are problems, so you throw money at it to fix it, then you need an oil change so you write a check for the price of a down payment on a small house. The next thing you know, you're living in a tent with your bike, but hey, you've got the Ducati. Lastly you throw the bike in the dumpster and take out a loan because BMW.

 

[Hair Warrior]

New capabilities due to new technology can't change strategy?

Short answer: You are 100% correct. Without boring you all to death with Pentagon Jedi mind tricks, the way the USAF defines "strategy" is an intricate framework of visionary, strategic, and supporting documents. The AF has a Strategic Master Plan and four supporting annexes:

• Strategic Posture (the where)
• Human Capital (the who)
• Capabilities (the how) [CLASSIFIED]
• Science & Technology (the future) [CLASSIFIED]

So when we are tying our plans, POM funding, and execution to a strategy - we are explicitly considering the capabilities and future technologies that are part of the strategy.

/management consultant boring stuff

 

[Hair Warrior]

It's like owning a Ducati, its expensive at first but you think its awesome to have it so its worth the price tag, then you realize there are problems, so you throw money at it to fix it, then you need an oil change so you write a check for the price of a down payment on a small house. The next thing you know, you're living in a tent with your bike, but hey, you've got the Ducati. Lastly you throw the bike in the dumpster and take out a loan because BMW.

Lol. I like your style.

The rest of that analogy would be: There are Russian and Chinese guys who live across the cul de sac who are trying to hot-rod their cars at the same time in their driveways. As long as your expensive, busted hot rod can outrace their expensive, broken hot rods (or make them go broke trying to keep pace with you), then you're all good, right?

Meanwhile, your lawn hasn't been mowed in a couple months, your roof leaks, and there's a hole in your backyard fence.

 

[RedFive]

LCS seems like a decent platform to steam around to 3rd world countries showing the flag and chase drug runners, but then again we've already got the CG for that.

For the record, the Coasties would love it if we sent even one LCS down to 4th fleet. Without divulging too much sensitive information, they need our help in a bad way. Seems like a win-win mission for them and us: Finally, LCS would have some good publicity after scooping up some dope!