Posted on 09/09/2016 5:32:33 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
PARIS --- After spending billions of dollars, the US Navy has finally abandoned the Littoral Combat Ship concept, saying it will turn the first four LCSs into training ships and that all future vessels will be equipped for a single combat mission.
Although deliberately worded to minimize its import, the US Navy statement below is a clear acknowledgement that the LCS concept has been an abysmal failure.
But, even as it looks to mitigate the disastrous effects of having ordered a dozen LCS at once, before checking whether they performed as claimed (they have not), the Navy makes no mention of having found the technical faults which have struck four LCS ships this year.
In the statement below, the Navy announces it is abandoning the LCS’ most prized objectives (interchangeable mission modules; innovative but complex crewing arrangements) which were supposed to turn inexpensive small ships with small crews into potent combatants in coastal regions.
Ironically, this is an admission that the Government Accountability Office was right in recommending, in its latest report on the LCS program issued in June, that “Congress should consider not funding any requested LCS in fiscal year 2017 and should consider requiring the Navy to revise its acquisition strategy for the frigate.”
In fact, the ships are very expensive ($562.8 million for each ship, according to the Congressional Research Service, or about as much as a DDG 51 destroyer), their small crews are unable to switch mission modules when these are available, and their crewing arrangements have proved inoperative.
By turning the four Littoral Combat Ships it has commissioned to date into training ships, the Navy is also admitting they are operationally worthless.
So the LCS concept is a total failure, and the billions of dollars spent so far have been wasted, despite each one having cost about half a billion dollars.
All of this should be of major concern as the US Navy has ordered 22 ships under two block buy contracts awarded to the two LCS builders in December 2010, and the 8th was delivered in mid-August. These contracts run until FY2022.
This means the Navy is still buying fault-plagued ships designed to a failed operational concept at over a half-billion dollars a pop, which is neither a good idea nor a prudent use of taxpayers’ billions of dollars.
Whether, or how, the US Navy reacts to the LCS ballooning problems in the acquisition field will determine how seriously its military and civilian chiefs take their responsibilities.
(ends)
Navy Adjusts LCS Class Crewing, Readiness, and Employment (Source: U.S Navy; issued Sept 8, 2016) SAN DIEGO --- The Navy announced today it will implement several key changes to the projected 28-ship Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Flight 0/0+ class over the next five years that will simplify crewing, stabilize testing, and increase overseas deployment presence availability.
The projected 12 Frigates will be the next increment of LCS and will use the same manning, training, maintenance and operating concepts as those that have been approved as part of the LCS review.
The decision to make these changes resulted from a comprehensive review of LCS crewing, training, maintenance, and operations commissioned in March.
While a total of 40 ships have been approved for the program, the Navy Force Structure Assessment still projects the need for 52 small surface combatants that LCS and Frigate address.
Beginning this fall, the Navy will start to phase out the 3:2:1 crewing construct and transition to a Blue/Gold model similar to the one used in crewing Ballistic Missile submarines, patrol craft and minesweepers. The LCS crews will also merge, train, and rotate with mission module detachment crews, organizing as four-ship divisions of a single warfare area - either surface warfare (SUW), mine warfare (MCM), or anti-submarine warfare (ASW).
Though organized this way, the LCS class will retain the technological benefits of modularity and the ability to swap mission packages quickly if needed. Aviation detachments will also deploy with the same LCS crew, but will remain assigned to their respective squadrons when in home port.
To facilitate these changes across the class, the Navy will eventually homeport Independence-variant ships in San Diego and Freedom-variant ships in Mayport, Fla. 24 of the 28 LCS ships will form into six divisions with three divisions on each coast. Each division will have a single warfare focus and the crews and mission module detachments will be fused.
Each division will consist of three Blue/Gold-crewed ships that deploy overseas and one single-crewed training ship. Under this construct, each division's training ship will remain available locally to certify crews preparing to deploy. Few homeport shifts will be needed since only six LCS are currently commissioned while the rest are under contract, in construction, or in a pre-commissioned unit status.
The first four LCS ships (LCS 1-4) will become testing ships.
Like the training ships, testing ships will be single-crewed and could be deployed as fleet assets if needed on a limited basis; however, their primary purpose will be to satisfy near and long term testing requirements for the entire LCS class without affecting ongoing deployment rotations. This approach accommodates spiral development and rapid deployment of emerging weapons and delivery systems to the fleet without disrupting operational schedules.
Implementing these changes now and as more LCS ships are commissioned over the coming years will ultimately allow the Navy to deploy more ships, increasing overall forward presence. With the Blue/Gold model in place, three out of four ships will be available for deployment compared with one out of two under 3:2:1. The Blue/Gold model will also simplify ownership of maintenance responsibilities and enhance continuity as the same two crews rotate on a single ship. Single-crewed training ships will complement shore-based training facilities and ensure crews have enough time at sea before deployment. The findings and recommendations of the LCS review will allow the LCS program to become more survivable, lethal, and adaptable as the LCS become regular workhorses in the fleet.
"As we implement these changes, we will continue to make iterative adjustments and improvements based on evolving fleet requirements and technological developments," said Vice Adm. Tom Rowden, commander, Naval Surface Forces. "Implementing the approved recommendations from this review and continuing to examine other areas for improvement will better position the LCS program for success - both now and in the future."
-ends-
Ahhh! You are thinking like a warrior. Not allowed anymore.
To me this looked like a poorly executed attempt to duplicate some of the same modular concepts as the MEKO and Stanflex designs, and making it over complicated. Your opinion on this?
What? You didn’t think the bastards actually cared about creating an effective warship did you?
You broke the code. Bravo!
I’m going to the christening of the USS Montgomery tomorrow. I’ve never been to a ship christening before so really looking forward to it. And my date is a retired Coastie!
They should beg the contractors to let them convert the orders into Burke class DDs.
I think you're correct. I found several references to these projects in the early LCS briefings.
The more payloads they tried to implement, the more complex the whole thing became. Technology was advancing very quickly but the construction wasn't. The process made software and hardware obsolete before it ever finished testing. The Navy specified which computer processors had to be used when they designed the original ship and 15 years later the technology was so outdated that it was unworkable.
Is the USS Montgomery a LCS? Is the christening in Mobile tomorrow? I am 130 miles away and have never been to a christening .
On another look at this story, who decided the LCS is a flawed platform,? and are they the same Wise men who decided this ship type was the end all.?
Getting too close to shore these days is asking for a missile up the butt.
I'd be curious about the viability of a Dock Landing Ship hosting a few unmanned fast patrol boats and air drones. Let the drone ships go close to shore and shoot up pirates and such.
Sometimes the only way to find out if a system is feasible is to try it out. This one fell short, apparently.
Great episode. Heste.....Aretha....Gipple.... That made me laugh.
Well, they are finally having to come to grips with these vessels.
The vessels themselves, particularly with the upgrades and uparmaments now recommended, can be turned into decent frigates.
Now they have to work out the logistics See this article:
http://navaltoday.com/2016/09/09/us-navy-announces-new-changes-for-lcs-crews/
This is a little more detailed and objective view of what has been announced.
They are still going to build 28 of the up armed LCS, and then 24 of the new Fast Frigate designs that have even better armor and layout. 52 vessels altogether.
They just have to learn now how to practically use them...something old Navy slats have been hollering about since the onset.
Finally someone is listening.
For the first 28 vessels (of a planned 52) they will create six, four ship flotillas of vessels. Each flotilla will have four of the same type/class LCS. Freedom class on the East coast, Independence class on the West Coast.
This makes up 24 of the 28 vessels. They will then take the first four LCS (LCS-1 through LCS-4), two from each type, and form a testing flotilla that can be available at anytime for exercises or combat, but who will be focused on long term integration, policy, procedure, etc. as they continue to build out these vessels.
Going to a Gold Blue crewing configuration makes a lot more sense to me.
Also, dedicating each flotilla to either ASW, ASuW, or MCM as their primary mission will also make a lot of sense, even though the crews will be trained to be able to operate in other areas if needed.
All of this final starts to make sense of how they will man, train, operate, and deploy these ships.
It has just been a tortured and laborious path getting here.
Exactly, which is why we don't want to be sending big, expensive ships close to shore. But at the same time, we don't want to concede the coastal zone to the bad guys, and we want to sail those waters simply to reassert the right of navigation under international law, which quickly goes rusty if not exercised. So the question is, what kind of platform do we need to dominate that space?
Almost by definition, we are talking about gray area, short-of-war situations. If hostilities are in full flower, it's a different equation. We can shoot first, establish air supremacy, and come in hard and fast when and if we do commit ships or men to close engagement. But that's not where we are, most of the time.
Take just another ordinary summer day in the Persian Gulf. Nothing to see except swarms of small boats, apparently civilian, and in almost all cases, the bad guys will hit first, with complete operational surprise. What kind of ship are you prepared to risk in that environment? Or do we simply accept that the U.S. Navy no longer has freedom of navigation in international waters that happen to have uglies living nearby?
Sounds like a ship built by committee, always a failure. One substantial hit in combat and they will be a bbq pit for the crew with all that aluminum.
Arliegh Burke cans or a new design in size between a Burke and a Ticonderoga class cruiser perhaps.
Yeah, that’s the kind of decision I make for my 200 lb. dirt bike
Half of them will be built by an Australian company, Austal. How the relatively small foreign company got a multi-billion dollar contract baffles me. Well, not really, but the bribe process must have been very complicated.
I hope you are doing well.
Probably more sociably acceptable than the USS Taint
I never saw one that could fly or float.
Shoulda asked the Dutch to design it.
Doesn't have the LCS speed, cause it's weighed down with stuff the LCS doesn't have:bigger gun AAW and ASuWMissiles, sonar, more versitile flex deck and hanger.
But does a combatant really need all that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.