Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Brumby said:

SECDEF Carter Directs Navy to Cut Littoral Combat Ship Program to 40 Hulls, Single Shipbuilder

About time that it finally came down to having to down select to a single shipbuilder and design. There is just too much politics in the way of good judgement.

Click to expand...

While I agree, my understanding from reading other sources as well (I think defensenews & flightglobal) is that this will only take effect after the 33rd ship. Up until then, all will be LCS standard from the two builders. And then the remaining 7 would be FF type from a single builder.
To me, at a quick glance, it should be the other way around. End the LCS built rather quickly, and then go ahead with one FF design in numbers greater then 7.
My understanding is that 6 LCS are in commision, 14 are building and several more are already contracted.

The money saved fromt hat move is supposed to go to more F/A-18E/F, F-35C, SM-6 and perhaps SSBN(X) design.
And the navy doesn't seem happy with more airframes over vessel numbers.

Scratch said:

To me, at a quick glance, it should be the other way around. End the LCS built rather quickly, and then go ahead with one FF design in numbers greater then 7.
My understanding is that 6 LCS are in commision, 14 are building and several more are already contracted.

Click to expand...

I think contractually the Navy is already committed to the first 32 vessels. I believe they saw this coming long ago and locked in early whatever number they could get away with before the door shuts on them.

Scratch said:

The money saved fromt hat move is supposed to go to more F/A-18E/F, F-35C, SM-6 and perhaps SSBN(X) design.
And the navy doesn't seem happy with more airframes over vessel numbers.

Click to expand...

I think an additional Burke (partial advance funding) came out of this revision. Secretary Carter's commented too much emphasis was in getting to the navy's goal on ships and not on platform utility. My Interpretation of his comments is that the LCS is bad design, poor procurement policy, let's fix this and move on. The surprise in my view was the decisiveness of this move and the unilateral imposition on the USN to get it done.

Brumby said:

SECDEF Carter Directs Navy to Cut Littoral Combat Ship Program to 40 Hulls, Single Shipbuilder.

Click to expand...

Interesting...how many LCS and how many FFs?

We know they are going to build 24 LCS (and that is the number that was locked in I believe). Earlier they had speculated that they would go to 32 total LCS, and then 20 FFs.

So, now is the FF line going to kick up after 24 LCS and allow for 16 FFs? I hope so. otherwise you will not get many FFs at all.

When does the single hull start? After 24?

Lots of questions still...and of course, in January 2017 a new admin will come in. If it is the DNC this will stay the same. if it GOP, things could change.

We shall wit and see.

Jeff Head said:

Interesting...how many LCS and how many FFs?

We know they are going to build 24 LCS (and that is the number that was locked in I believe). Earlier they had speculated that they would go to 32 total LCS, and then 20 FFs.

So, now is the FF line going to kick up after 24 LCS and allow for 16 FFs? I hope so. otherwise you will not get many FFs at all.

When does the single hull start? After 24? ...

Click to expand...

The following excerpt from a defensenews article on the issue seems to suggest that there will be 33 "base" LCS vessels, meaning only 7 FFs. Which is why I said earlier that this would seem odd. Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but I think that cut to one FF design from a single builder should come into effect earlier than that.

... Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in a Dec. 14 memo to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, told the Navy to "reduce the planned LCS/FF procurement from 52 to 40, creating a 1-1-1-1-2 profile, for eight fewer ships in the FYDP, and then downselect to one variant by FY 2019."

FF is a Navy designation for frigate. Beginning with LCS 33, the Navy is planning to build a more heavily-armed LCS variant with the FF designation — the result of a 2014 directive from then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to produce a more powerful ship.

The "1-1-1-1-2" profile would provide for one ship each year in 2017-2020 and two ships in 2021, the end of the current future years defense plan (FYDP). That revised build plan would cover ship orders up to LCS 33. ...

Click to expand...

Scratch said:

The following excerpt from a defensenews article on the issue seems to suggest that there will be 33 "base" LCS vessels, meaning only 7 FFs. Which is why I said earlier that this would seem odd. Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but I think that cut to one FF design from a single builder should come into effect earlier than that.

Click to expand...

It does make no sense to just build seven of the FFs.

If this is the way the Obama admin leaves it, I expect a number of the FFs to be restored under a GOP administration.

The Navy is not yielding to Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s memo cutting the Navy’s much-maligned program from 52 of the small ships to 40 and dumping one of building them.

The debate between the Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense boils down to one fundamental question. Should the Navy focus on day-to-day peacetime demands around the world, aka “presence,”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, or on the prospect of high-end warfighting against

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, for which it’s not?

“The Navy is still fighting this decision, so maybe this will play out into the next year’s congressional session,” said one source familiar with the program.

“Nothing is finalized just yet,” a defense official told me this morning. So the Navy is not resigned to the numbers in the Carter memo? That’s correct, the official confirmed.

Click to expand...

The original plan for 52 Littoral Combat Ships would mean one Navy ship in six was an LCS. But Carter counters: 40 is fine: It’s “the number that the Navy’s own warfighting analysis says is sufficient to need.”

Uh, what study is that? reply our sources familiar with Navy thinking.

“Nobody knows where that came from. That was a surprise,” said the source familiar with the program. “At least, it was a surprise to the PEO [Program Executive Office].”

“I don’t know,” said the defense official when I asked where the 40 figure came from. “What we always go off is the force structure assessment, [and] that’s always been 52.”

There’s a subtle but crucial question of wording here. Carter’s 40-LCS figure comes from a warfighting assessment. The 52-LCS figure comes from a more general assessment of force structure required for all missions, including peacetime presence needs.

Click to expand...

In order to understand the implications of Sec. Carter's recent directive in truncating the LCS program, it is helpful to overlay it against the background status of the program.

The baseline would be Sec. Hagel's directive, which is :
1 - 24 Flight 0+ (23 vessels funded to FY2015)
25 - 32 Some improvements to Flight 0+(24th to be funded in FY2016 and last of block buy)
33 - 52 FF
The premise in ensuring production continuity and non break to the industrial line was to leverage the identified improvements onto the Flight 0+ as the FF.

Under Sec. Carter's directive, nothing changes for the first 24 vessels (too late to do anything else). If the plan is to actually go for a more capable vessel i.e. new design, then there will clearly be a break in production. It is even questionable whether the time line can be met on a 33rd vessel as FF (new design) by sticking to the Hagel plan.

PS. The contractual commitment was up to the 24th vessel under the block buy contract and not 32 as I previously indicated in an earlier post.

Brumby said:

The Navy is not yielding to Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s memo cutting the Navy’s much-maligned

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

program from 52 of the small ships to 40 and dumping one of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

building them.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

So from your second link, the navy, in wartime conditions, now wants Austal design Fast Attack Craft to counter swarming boats in a maritime straight, and LM design Corvettes for convoy escort duties in the pacific.
And distribute them as needed in peacetime for maritime presence operations.

Sec. Carter's directive would limit the number to 16 each and then 8 Frigates. Which means in a normal cycle a maximum of 3 FFs will be available, primarily for CSG / ARG / SAG escort I suppose.

I must say it feels like someone actually thought about what to do with those assets, although the numbers allowed probably don't fit that plan.

Scratch said:

So from your second link, the navy, in wartime conditions, now wants Austal design Fast Attack Craft to counter swarming boats in a maritime straight, and LM design Corvettes for convoy escort duties in the pacific.
And distribute them as needed in peacetime for maritime presence operations.

Sec. Carter's directive would limit the number to 16 each and then 8 Frigates. Which means in a normal cycle a maximum of 3 FFs will be available, primarily for CSG / ARG / SAG escort I suppose.

I must say it feels like someone actually thought about what to do with those assets, although the numbers allowed probably don't fit that plan.

Click to expand...

Whilst the story on the truncation of the LCS program is getting the initial attention, in my view the more profound story is the direction, determination and momentum of the offset initiative that has gathered under the leadership of Sec. Carter. We are seeing decisiveness in the allocation of limited funding into investments that are directed at posturing and not simply presence. In Sec. Carter's memo, there is a clear sense of change in strategic emphasis towards investments that will enable it to prevail in a high end conflict. Items such as SM-6's, F-35's, Burkes, and Virginia's. Unfortunately, the LCS just doesn't fit the bill in a high end fight. As is, the LCS can't even maintain the tempo as part of a CSG due to its limited endurance besides the fact that it has no teeth. .

Bryan McGrath wrote a piece on the politics and changing strategic landscape of this news in Information Dissemination.

(the unclassified version of) the most recent GAO report
"LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP
Knowledge of Survivability and Lethality Capabilities Needed Prior to Making Major Funding Decisions"
became available at:

and starts with
"The lethality and survivability of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is still largely unproven,
6 years after delivery of the lead ships. LCS was designed with reduced requirements as compared to other surface combatants, and the Navy has since lowered several survivability and lethality requirements and removed several design features—making the ship both less survivable in its expected threat environments and less lethal than initially planned. The Navy is compensating for this by redefining how it plans to operate the ships."