NEWS LCS buy reduced, funding moved to other programs.

[Pags]

In a memo SECDEF directed the USN to reduce the planned LCS buy from 52 to 40 and to slow the pace at which the sea frames are acquired. SECDEF directed that the resources freed up shall be used instead to buy additional F-35s, F/A-18s, weapons and to fund NGJ along with other surface and sub programs.

http://news.usni.org/2015/12/16/sec...t-ship-program-to-40-hulls-single-shipbuilder

 

[Brett327]

From all the bad things I've read about the LCS program, this sounds like a good thing to me.

 

[Pags]

From all the bad things I've read about the LCS program, this sounds like a good thing to me.

"For the last several years, the Department of the Navy has overemphasized resources used to incrementally increase total ship numbers at the expense of critically-needed investments in areas where our adversaries are not standing still, such as strike, ship survivability, electronic warfare, and other capabilities. This has resulted in unacceptable reductions to the weapons, aircraft, and other advanced capabilities that are necessary to defeat and deter advanced adversaries."
I read the intent of the memo two ways:
1. The LCS offers no real capabilities so the Navy shouldn't waste money on it
2. The capability that the LCS does have is not the capability that's needed against peer adversaries

 

[Randy Daytona]

WTF is procurement doing?

http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...igate_lcs_is_outgunned_outclassed_107124.html

Most concerning is LCS’ lack of a credible anti-ship missile. The Navy originally planned a non-line of sight (NLOS) missile launcher for the LCS with a 25-mile range, but the program was cancelled. Now the LCS is armed with the Griffin missile, with just a 5-mile range. This is completely inadequate for a face off with a major surface combatant, especially Chinese vessels whose anti-ship missiles have a range of 100-150 miles.

 

[Pags]

The acquisition strategy for the LCS is curious at best. The success of the LCS program depended on the mutual success of multiple unproven technologies that haven't delivered as hoped. The NLOS mentioned above is one failure of many of the sub-systems associated with LCS. These failures and delays have delayed the fielding of the mission modules that were intended to give the LCS its capability so the Navy is left with sea frames that have minimal organic capabilities.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

well, I have heard from several people that LCS stands for "Little Crappy Ship".

it is not only the cost of the LCS that is saved by reducing the number, but you also save money on the Ocean going tug that goes with it!

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

Timing is especially interesting, wonder if this was primarily driven by the impending shut down of the Rhino production line in St. Louis?

 

[zippy]

Good move, too little too late.

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.

So far it's proven to be useless for just about anything other than being a misisle sponge otherwise.

 

[Brett327]

Timing is especially interesting, wonder if this was primarily driven by the impending shut down of the Rhino production line in St. Louis?

I doubt it was targeted that specifically, but VAQ is a big winner with airframes and NGJ. We just contracted for another 15 Growler airframes, and I saw that 7 were part of the omnibus spending bill. Boeing is probably going to slow roll production in hopes of additional future E/F/G buys (which seems likely).

 

[Flash]

...Most concerning is LCS’ lack of a credible anti-ship missile. The Navy originally planned a non-line of sight (NLOS) missile launcher for the LCS with a 25-mile range, but the program was cancelled. Now the LCS is armed with the Griffin missile, with just a 5-mile range. This is completely inadequate for a face off with a major surface combatant, especially Chinese vessels whose anti-ship missiles have a range of 100-150 miles.

Most concerning to me is the lack of any missile capability that goes beyond what the folks the bridge can see. With only torpedoes, RAM and a 57mm Hamas could sink the damn things. I know they were going to beef up the later LCS's to actually be frigates with more robust SAM's and other weapons but still, talk about putting lipstick on a pig. And why did we are we still building two versions when only one was supposed to 'win'?!!

I still can't understand why we just can't buy a frigate analogous to the ANZAC's or one of the Euro FFG's that are coming out of the shipyards with SPY-1's and cost less than the LCS's. Their procurement ranks up there with the Comanche, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle or even the M247 Sergeant York.

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

Most concerning to me is the lack of any missile capability that goes beyond what the folks the bridge can see. With only torpedoes, RAM and a 57mm Hamas could sink the damn things. I know they were going to beef up the later LCS's to actually be frigates with more robust SAM's and other weapons but still, talk about putting lipstick on a pig. And why did we are we still building two versions when only one was supposed to 'win'?!!

I still can't understand why we just can't buy a frigate analogous to the ANZAC's or one of the Euro FFG's that are coming out of the shipyards with SPY-1's and cost less than the LCS's. Their procurement ranks up there with the Comanche, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle or even the M247 Sergeant York.

I know Tyler Rogoway is far from the most unbiased source, but he had a great piece a few weeks ago about the Saudi's new LCS order (i.e. what the Navy's could have been)

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/saudi-arabia-is-buying-the-littoral-combat-ship-the-u-s-1737749488

 

[zippy]

I know Tyler Rogoway is far from the most unbiased source, but he had a great piece a few weeks ago about the Saudi's new LCS order (i.e. what the Navy's could have been)

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/saudi-arabia-is-buying-the-littoral-combat-ship-the-u-s-1737749488

I've never seen ESSM and control airspace used in the same sentence before. That made me chuckle.

ESSM and RAM are point defense weapons with their own strengths and weaknesses. The Saudi Platform would be more effective at AAW than our FFGs with the SM-1, so the author could be on to something. It'd be awesome if we could dump all of our LCS to the Coast Guard (whose mission the LCS can do as is) and jump in on the Saudi design with a few mods (different radars, SSDS like all the non CRUDES are using in place of AEGIS). Never gonna happen though.

 

[Recovering LSO]

"For the last several years, the Department of the Navy has overemphasized resources used to incrementally increase total ship numbers....

"We" can't even really all agree on how to count. One would think that coming up with a number of hulls wouldn't require a PhD (or legislation), but alas...

 

[Brett327]

I'm more eager to see a turnover in SECNAV's office than at the White House. Some people have described Maybus as a cancer on the service he leads.

 

[BigRed389]

Most concerning to me is the lack of any missile capability that goes beyond what the folks the bridge can see. With only torpedoes, RAM and a 57mm Hamas could sink the damn things. I know they were going to beef up the later LCS's to actually be frigates with more robust SAM's and other weapons but still, talk about putting lipstick on a pig. And why did we are we still building two versions when only one was supposed to 'win'?!!

I still can't understand why we just can't buy a frigate analogous to the ANZAC's or one of the Euro FFG's that are coming out of the shipyards with SPY-1's and cost less than the LCS's. Their procurement ranks up there with the Comanche, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle or even the M247 Sergeant York.

Because we don't really need FFGs that are basically neutered versions of DDGs. We have lots of DDGs to do DDG work.
LCS is certainly a fuckup of a program, but getting more FFGs that don't add value (beyond quantity) to do what DDGs do isn't really helpful either.
Getting something to do the TSC/presence/counterpiracy crap that we've had CGs and DDGs doing during the last decade would be nice too (kind of like how it might be nice to have an option where you don't have to beat down Hornet airframe hours to bomb people with no air defense capabilities, but I don't want to derail this thread).

DDG has no capacity (volume/facilities) to run USVs to do littoral ASW. Or to do MCM.

The real issue is funding for the weapons and modules. It's not hard (actually already been tested with NSM) to put a modern anti ship missile on an LCS. There's just no money (or desire to spend) on it. Look how long it's taken to get any traction on an air launched replacement/upgrade to Harpoon...and you guys are supposed to be the PRIMARY anti-ship missile shooters.