via Defense News.
WASHINGTON — The office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) reportedly supports the idea of limiting total purchases of littoral combat ships to only 24, far short of the US Navy’s goal of 52 ships, sources have told Defense News.If it wasn't for the drama with the Congressional hearings on war with Syria, this would have been front page news.
Stopping at 24 ships would end LCS procurement with the fiscal 2015 budget.
The Navy, according to sources, is countering with proposals for higher numbers, but strongly advocates going no lower than 32 ships — a number that would continue production another one or two years.
The positions are part of ongoing deliberations to formulate the fiscal 2015 defense budget, due to be submitted to Congress in February. The annual budget process has been heavily disrupted due to sequester cuts, and the White House’s insistence on producing two versions of the budget — a non-sequestration version, called the program objective memorandum (POM) — and an alternative POM (ALT POM), incorporating the mandated cuts and hence, far more severe reductions in purchases and programs.
Pentagon budget officials have focused primarily on the ALT POM, and in late August began switching to the POM. The OSD proposal to limit LCS to 24 ships is understood to be part of the ALT POM discussions.
Asked for comment, both OSD and Navy officials emphasized that no final decisions have been made.
“Until the FY15 President’s Budget request is submitted to the Congress in February 2014, and becomes part of the public record, all decisions are pre-decisional and it is inappropriate to discuss specific details,” said Lt. Caroline Hutcheson, a Navy spokeswoman at the Pentagon.
Quite honestly the puzzling thing is that they don't cancel further production. This ship, its specifications, its mission modules and its concept of operations is jacked up from the floor up.
Victory for reformers. Victory for the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. Reformers stopped at least partially an inadequate ship. The complex still got 24 of them bought even though its trash.
I guess the losers will be the sailors that have to take these ships out on missions.
no Harpoons, no VLS, no torpedoes, no ASROC, no PHALANX, one 57mm machine cannon to fight-off dozens of Iranian suicide speedboats laden with explosives????
ReplyDeleteWhy in the FUCK are my tax dollars paying for this over-technological, under-armed boondoggle?
You missed a few weapons:
ReplyDelete1. 57mm cannon
2. SeaRam that can attack surface targets if needed.
3. Two 30mm cannons
4. Griffin missile on the ship
5. Hellfire on the choppers
6. Hellfire/Griffin/DAGR/LOGIR on the UCAVs
Even with this I think it's undergunned and needs the UpGun treatment.
The 57mm is fixed, SeaRam would be very range limited for surface targets, 30mm and Griffin are for the surface warface module only, Hellfire/Griffin/DAGR/LOGIR on a UCAV are not anywhere close to operationally ready. No commander is going to be willing to send out a Fire Scout with Hellfires on it and actually let it shoot something.
DeleteWhen a Fire Scout is able to shoot a maneuvering speed boat, that is shooting back with a radar guided 20mm autocannon (1950s technology), with a Hell Fire missile then I will be a believer. In God I trust, all others must bring data.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the 57mm is fixed” and if it is supposed to be a bad thing.
DeleteRemember that we are talking about the LCS’s ability to “fight-off dozens of Iranian suicide speedboats laden with explosives” so the range of the LCS weapons is not an issue as even the paltry 3km range of the Griffin is fine and the SeaRAM has a much longer range than that.
Since we are talking about a combat situation, then the LCS would be post IOC and all systems (30mm, Hellfire, DAGR, Fire Scout, drones, etc) would be operational and fully valid weapons to use against a swarm attack.
i think there was a blog called new wars that explored the whole mess,
ReplyDeleteyou where there too!!!i think us navy needs frigates yesterday.
and if i dare say get of middle east or even the atlantic mind set focus on the real players.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone seen an update on LCS 2 recently? I haven't been able to find anything and all of the published news seems to be on LCS 1.
ReplyDeletei haven't ... to be quite honest i didn't think they had solved the metal issues with that ship and from the slow down i bet its still leaking.
DeleteThey just entered PSA (Post Shakedown Availability) Phase 2.
DeleteSOL, this reduction in funds allowed the Navy for LCS is a victory for the Bean Counters NOT for the Reformists. And a I have noted before, we as stuck with the current contracts for 24 if for no other reason than the "termination for convience of the Gov" costs would be astronomical.
ReplyDeleteAll that having been said, GOOD the USN only needs to spend bucks on 24 LCS! BUT now NAVSEA has to find MORE corvette sized and perhaps multi-functional warships to replace the REMAINDER of the LCS which the Navy sill needs to fill up its fleet plans.
Anyone can find many existing designs and ship classes which SHOULD be used to bring the next type into service about when the last LCS is at IOC.
well said and i stand corrected.
DeleteThis is why the LCS is a huge Mistake that is going to bite the US Navy in the ass in the future. The LCS was never meant to replace a frigate because it simply was proven that the LCS is not a Frigate or a Corvette. The LCS IMO is only meant to combine the functions of the PC and MCM fleet and in reality the LCS is undergunned Corvette. The LCS can never replace a Perry class frigate because the LCS is not armed to a frigate and Corvette standard. What the US Navy needs is a 5,000 ton General purpose Frigate to replace the OHP. The US Navy needs a GP frigate in the same lines as the Talwar class frigate, ANZAC class frigate, Formidable-class frigate, La Fayette-class frigate, Valour-class frigate or the MEKO A200 class frigates.
ReplyDeleteBTW, The USMC is looking at the LCS, specifically the Independence class, to develop a Marine Mission Module and possible applications.
ReplyDeletewell aware, but that bullshit will die as soon as we get a replacement for clueless, lost in the woods Amos' sorry ass.
Deletehe is the worst Commandant the Marine Corps has had in my lifetime. he worships at the feet of McRaven and SOCOM and the idea of dispersing a company or less of Marines aboard LCS ships makes no sense at all. the man is a fucking disgrace. that idea and the idea to create a Special Purpose MAGTF-Crisis Response is fucking insane.
Good catch Spudman! I was wondering what the Independence was up to?
DeletePreviously, despite the not so smart comments by some Maine GOs, the LCS was studied and thought to be only usefull as a lilypad. This linked article points to the key attributes which makes the LCS-2 class good for a little more. I quote:
“The key characteristic of this particular variant of LCS, despite the shallow draft, small crew and relatively small displacement, is the enormous amount of interior cargo space which allows us to mount mission package equipment, extremely generous flight deck for a ship this size, and a large aviation facility,” said Cmdr. David Back, commanding officer of the USS Independence Gold Crew."
I feel as though the LCS is way too under gunned for a ship which will likely take part in littoral operations especially those which could possibly happen off Iran's coast. In that event It MIGHT be able to deal with swarm attacks but what about missiles fired from the shore. Supposedly Iran has Exocets captured from the Iraqis which they've no doubt reverse engineered. If one were to hit, that would be it for the ship
ReplyDeletefor a ship of that size at least
Delete