NEWS LCS buy reduced, funding moved to other programs.

[Spekkio]

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.

It sounds like the root issue is that people can't agree on what they want the LCS to be, and this led to bloated requirement creep. People are criticizing the platform for lacking OTH missiles, but was that ever its intended role in the broader scheme of Naval warfare when it was conceived in the thick of us fighting a land war in 3rd world, land-locked countries?

Pair this with untested technology (i.e. UUVs for MCM), and you have yourself an abortion of a program.

 

[zippy]

It's pretty dumb to field a "combat ship" that 1) isn't found to be survivable in a combat environment 2) doesn't have the weaponry to defend itself against the prevalent threats in the theater it's being operated in and 3) has the damage control plan of "an orderly abandon ship" if hit by enemy fire.

 

[SynixMan]

To my mind, we if we want US presence operations off a neutral to friendly nation, that's a great mission for a JHSV with a single helicopter. Show the flag, do some partner ops and training, no worries.

I still can't figure out what LCS is for. It's not a ASW Frigate ala the OHP Class. It's not a light destroyer, FFG, MCM, or anything else. I don't get it.

 

[Gatordev]

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

That article was posted in October. I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in what the Saudi's think they were getting in October considering the USN wasn't even sure yet.

 

[Spekkio]

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.

 

[danpass]

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.

Some feel he may be gone within a month, given the tone of this letter:

http://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/12_14_15_memo_secdef.pdf




_

 

[Brett327]

Yeah, I cringed at the tone of SD's memo when I read it. An early departure would be an interesting development, but I'm guessing Maybus will probably stick it out for another year, but who knows?

 

[CAMike]

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.

Well, Look on the bright side. Now aviators can feel comfortable flying around the LCS at distanced near 6 miles. Nothing more hilarious than late 80's Persian Gulf radio conversations like:

On the Radio...
HSL Bubba: "....commencing approach. Whisky 4 Delta, is your CIWS in AAW Auto?
Boone: Wait one...
Boone: Thanks, affirmative ...It's in STBY now.
HSL Bubba: No, Thank you.

On amore serious note, The Perry ships started out in similar ways. MAJOR engineering changes just prior to assembly, shortening the ship to save money.... the list goes on. It's kind of natural for us to mess up small boys. I think of it as "Tradition".

 

[Flash]

Because we don't really need FFGs that are basically neutered versions of DDGs. We have lots of DDGs to do DDG work.....

It's pretty dumb to field a "combat ship" that 1) isn't found to be survivable in a combat environment 2) doesn't have the weaponry to defend itself against the prevalent threats in the theater it's being operated in and 3) has the damage control plan of "an orderly abandon ship" if hit by enemy fire.

I am not looking for a 'mini-DDG but something with a minimum of self-defense capability and the possibility for some offensive capability. To waste the amount of money we have on a big minesweeper/patrol ship is absurd, they cost as much as the very capable FFG's many of the Euro's are churning out when just buying some patrol ships and minesweepers would have made a lot more sense and a lot cheaper. The Navy wanted a Swiss Army/Leatherman tool and all we ended up with is a gold-plated wedge.

 

[IRfly]

That's really weird. In the priorities listed in the memo I didn't see anything about retaining the "right kind" of personnel or how diversity makes us stronger. I don't know what to believe anymore.

 

[zippy]

I still can't figure out what LCS is for. It's not a ASW Frigate ala the OHP Class. It's not a light destroyer, FFG, MCM, or anything else. I don't get it.

Don't feel too bad, neither do their COs. It was pretty sad sitting in a maritime tactics class with LCS PCOs who have zero idea what they're actually going to be doing/ have the capability to do its current state of maturity.

Basically independent Ops showing the flag and pulling into port were about all that we could come up with employment wise, because it can't do anything else.

 

[Brett327]

Jesus, that sounds a lot like VP in the early to mid 90s. Hopefully they'll figure it out.

For those of you who follow CDR Salamander, he has been railing against LCS for years. A lot of good writing has been done over there.

 

[nittany03]

A lot of good writing has been done over there.

Sal is generally a very good read. Some of his commenters, though, could bum lithium off a shithouse rat, and probably should.

I mean, I'm sure some would describe me as "right-wing" on some topics, but ye gads.

 

[Brett327]

Sal is generally a very good read. Some of his commenters, though, could bum lithium off a shithouse rat, and probably should.

I mean, I'm sure some would describe me as "right-wing" on some topics, but ye gads.

And that would be distinct from other internet commenters how?

 

[jmcquate]

Yeah, I cringed at the tone of SD's memo when I read it. An early departure would be an interesting development, but I'm guessing Maybus will probably stick it out for another year, but who knows?

Saw him speak at a Naval Institute event a few weeks back. He was fond of capabilities vs funding graphs. He pretty much spent 40 minutes saying nothing, but I expected that. Not sure if sub drivers should be CNOs...............thoughts?