US Navy launches 1st Littoral Combat Ship, US Coast Guard launches 1st National Security Cutter

MARINETTE, Wis. (NNS) -- Thousands looked on Sept. 24, 2006, as the Navy christened and launched the nation's first littoral combat ship, Freedom (LCS 1), at the Marinette Marine shipyard.

“Just a little more than three years ago she was just an idea, now Freedom stands before us. And on this morning, we christen her, send her down the ways and get her ready to join the fleet next year,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations. “It comes none too soon, because there are tough challenges out there that only she can handle.”

The 377-foot Freedom is capable of speeds in excess of 40 knots and can operate in water less than 20 feet deep. The ship will act as a platform for launch and recovery of manned and unmanned vehicles. Its modular design will support interchangeable mission packages, allowing the ship to be reconfigured for antisubmarine warfare, mine warfare, or surface warfare missions on an as-needed basis.

The General Dynamics Trimaran version , LCS 2 [i]Independence[/i], will be luanched and christened in 2007.

The first National Security Cutter (NSC), USCGC Bertholf, was built at the Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (NGSS) Ingalls Operations in Pascagoula, Miss. A ceremony was held on September 9, 2004 to mark the beginning of construction of the first NSC. The cutter was launched on September 29, 2006. The construction of the second NSC is underway. (Photos courtesy of Northrop Grumman)

Stock options? Or could you point to source material that explains in detail what doesn't work with the FIELDED ship, and the time machine that shows the NOT FIELDED ship won't have any problems?

The other one apparently will be fielded, just a bit downstream.

I sort of like the idea of building two different designs and then have a "sail off" to see which works better. The Air Force does it all the time. YF-16 vs. YF-17, YA-9 vs YA-10, YF-22 vs YF-23.) The Navy has a harder time, since ships cost a lot more to build, and you don't build so many, but then they haven't done it with aircraft lately either. Could be why they don' t have a next generation aircraft, like the F-22 and F-35, instead getting an upsized F-18 (which was derived from the loser in the YF-16/YF-17 fly off) The Army doesn't do it much either, at least lately, and their stuff is usually cheaper and bought in larger quantities than the Air Force's weapon systems.

I think it's those performance based specs that we went to

Nothing wrong with performance specs. But if you're going to use them, you have to build prototypes first, and it's a good idea to fund more than one of them, from different contractors. Competition for the production buy keeps 'em honest, more or less (and I have been a defense contractor employee for almost 3 decades, I know how it is on the inside) and you don't commit large amounts for production of untried systems, or systems that you just "gotta have" because nothing else is available.

However if going to that sort of system, you also have to leave the contractor alone for more than a quarter. Have a few meetings/conferences early on to be sure they really know what is needed, then let them build the thing. (If they are worth the powder to blow them up, they should already know, but many , especially as you move away from major weapons systems, haven't a clue, they just want to sell something. I'm involved with one of those in my current capacity as a consultant type contractor. I'm sick to death of meetings which spend alot of time, and money, accomplishing very little. Especially given that the contract isn't going to be canceled at least until the prototypes are built, and don't work, unless for budgetary reasons)

The incremental or spiral builds, while understandable, truly do cause problems, even though you get more as technology improves. (or that's what is supposed to happen, anyway).

With the emphasis on "supposed". Instead what seems to happen is that requirements are pushed off to later spirals, as money runs short, or technical obstacles are encountered, or as it becomes obvious the contractor doesn't really have a clue as to how to satisfy those requirements, as he said he did in his proposal.

Nope...although it has some similar capabilities, it is the replacement for the Coast Guard High Endurance Cutters built in the 60s and 70s.

A modern US destroyer, like the Arliegh Burke displaces about 9,000 tons versus this ship's 4,300 tons and is much more heavily armed for Anti-Submarine warfare, Anti-Air warfare, and anti-surface warfae.

Here's a couple of pics, first a US Navy DDG (destroyer) and then the new Maritime Security Cutter for the Coast Guard.

I have some questions and observations on the LCS program and the Navy’s strategy.

In addition to the Philippines Islands as a locus of operation, the Navy apparently plans to operate these LCSs in potentially hostile waters which could include Communist China.

With the sophisticated anti-access/denial-access weapons in their possession, or soon in their possession, of the Chi-Coms, what chance do the LCSs have in this very hostile surface environment? In addition, the Chi-Coms have the Shakval homing torpedoes which travel close to 300 MPH for short distances (1,000 or so yards?). Finally, with the advances in anti-ship missiles (e.g., the Israeli ship was hit with one off Lebanon and remember the Falklands War) how can they even get into the littorals?

The missions assigned the LCS’s overlap and take away missions from the SSNs. How can the LCS possible compete with the SSNs on ISR missions, anti-sub missions and anti-mine missions? This is currently an unproven, and untested (and largely undeveloped) LCS program. The program dollars cut back from the highly proven VA class SSN construction program appear to closely match the program dollars being absorbed by the LCS program and related modules (also undeveloped).

What can be done to re-review this program decision and likely mission misjudgment? It perhaps also brings a great risk to national security as well as a great risk to the dedicated sailors who will man the LCSs?

The Russians/Soviets were very respectful of our SSNs and the Chi-Coms should be very respectful of our SSNs or they will pay a great price. I can not now see how the Chi-coms will be fearful of the LCSs compared to our SSNs. Meanwhile the Chi-Coms are building subs galore and buying Russian subs galore. Six shipyards are dedicated to this sub construction effort in Russia and China. Mothballed Russian Kilos (like brand new) were sold to North Korea (50) and many were also sold to China. Also, Russian subs are being refurbished for sale to China. China is planning to have 150 to 200 submarines in the next 15 years or so; they have 80 to 100 now but I do not know their condition. They are planning to use the older subs as sacrificial decoys against our SSNs; what a great mission for these poor submariners. Our Navy is planning 48 or less SSNs.

China has SSBNs that can hit 250 to 500 U.S. cities with MIRV ICBMs. Guess who gets to go after them and has to keep track of them just like the Soviet SSBNs? The Soviets were so afraid of our SSNs that they set up a bastion strategy under the polar ice where a Typhoon SSBN was surrounded by their SSNs to give it time to fire its missiles.

Both Russia and China believe submarines will win the next world war as aircraft carriers and their air arms won WW II in the Pacific. What do the Chinese and Russian know that we do not? What page are our war planners on? Don’t we need a two war capability with the Russians and Chinese working together? What page is the Navy on? Please enlighten me on these issues?

The most dangerous subs to our forces at the curent time are the modern Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) diesel/electrics and their proliferation. They are very quiet. But, due to their slower speed, they are a litoral area combatant principally. The LCS is designed to, among other things, hunt those subs from the surface. It is also designed to conduct anti-surface, and mine warfare in those regions where we do not want to risk a billion dollar destroyer or cruiser.

When confined to those missions, and with the necessary air and surface support our CSGs and SAGs will offer from further out to sea, they will do very well. It is not a mis-managed or mistaken mission. It is one that is needed and that these vessels, IMHO, will perform aptly.

Now, my biggest concern is our overall force structure. If the 50-60 necessary LCS vessels are simply a part of a 320 ship Navy, then we are, IMHO, going to be in trouble. I believe we need to build back to the 600 ship Navy of the Reagan era. 14 Carrier battle groups. 14 Phibrons, and all the necccessary cruisers, destroyers, attack subs, and logistic vessels to support them.

Instead, what we are seeing is a continuation and projection of a view that major surface or strike at sea warfare is somehow very unlikely or a thing of the past. This is a huge mistake, and someone better inform the Chinese in particular, as well as the Russians and others...because those people are building up for that very type of warfare at in the blue water, as well as the litoral areas.

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.

Yee Haw!