www.ditl.org

A recent Pentagon war game that ran the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship through simulated combat in the Gulf didn’t unfold quite as expected, according to participants.

Seeing their small boat swarm shot-up, the Iranians dispatched a bunch of small, air-breathing submarines to attack the LCS flotilla. The LCSs were forced to steam down to Diego Garcia to switch out the surface warfare modules with the anti-submarine warfare packages. That scenario repeated itself every time the Iranians changed up their attack and wrong-footed the LCS flotilla...

...watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office tell lawmakers that the mission modules aren’t working, face serious delays and that work on the anti-submarine warfare package has been suspended... The surface warfare package remains unproven... There have also been problems with the mechanism designed to launch 11-meter rigid inflatable boats off the stern of the LCS. One Navy source told Defense Tech that it takes more than 45 minutes to launch a RIB boat off an LCS.

How many billions have these things cost again?

Way too much for such a specialized vehicle.

Sounds like me and my buddies in a pickup would be more cost-effective.

What on Earth were these things even supposed to do that the rest of the US Navy couldn't already do more effeciently for less cost?

Brown-water fighting, like along coastlines, etc.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Brown-water fighting, like along coastlines, etc.

Time to dust off the old PT-Boat blueprints eh?

Sionnach Glic wrote:What on Earth were these things even supposed to do that the rest of the US Navy couldn't already do more effeciently for less cost?

Take on large numbers of small, very fast craft close in to the shore. An Arleigh Burke destroyer needs 32 feet of water to operate in, and that's if you want to cruise around with your hull an inch or two off the bottom; 40 of 50 feet would be more like it. Both LCS designs go down only 13 feet under the water, which mean they can quite easily sail right into a lot of the world's river estuaries. They're also bloody fast at 44 and 47 knots respectively.

They're actually nice ships, potentially, but the cost seems WAY out of line for what you get, at least to this civilian. Seems to me that buying a couple of dozen of something like the Visby or Bayunah classes would do much the same job for a lot less money.

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Sionnach Glic wrote:What on Earth were these things even supposed to do that the rest of the US Navy couldn't already do more effeciently for less cost?

Take on large numbers of small, very fast craft close in to the shore. An Arleigh Burke destroyer needs 32 feet of water to operate in, and that's if you want to cruise around with your hull an inch or two off the bottom; 40 of 50 feet would be more like it. Both LCS designs go down only 13 feet under the water, which mean they can quite easily sail right into a lot of the world's river estuaries. They're also bloody fast at 44 and 47 knots respectively.

They're actually nice ships, potentially, but the cost seems WAY out of line for what you get, at least to this civilian. Seems to me that buying a couple of dozen of something like the Visby or Bayunah classes would do much the same job for a lot less money.

Really the problems once again come from "cost cutting efforts" and the desire to build ships that can do everything. In my view they had it right in the 1980's when they built the Sprucans and the Tico's for two distinct missions. The constant effort to make a ship that can do everything leads to huge cost overruns. They then try to solve this by cutting down the design (see DD-21 to Zumwalt). The problem is that all the parts of the Navy are screaming this is the only surface combatant you are building and it needs to do MY job be that ASW, Air Defense, Missile Defense, Bombardment ect. So the thing ends up getting a ton of stuff added back into it and predictably goes way over budget.

In my view this is the same problem the F-35 had. What was once a simple plane mostly replacing the F-16 and F-18 kept getting missions shoved at it to replace this that and the other plane that was no longer around that it predictable might end up costing as much as an F-22.

Military purchasing is so screwed up I am not sure it can be fixed. So many people have their hands in the till worldwide that it seems nothing can ever actually get built.

Have you ever seen the movie "The Pentagon Wars"? It's based on a book by a guy who was in charge of the development of the M2 Bradley; he claims it's the plain simple truth of how the Pentagon typically acquires military hardware. Here's a taste.

The problem is deploying the LCS's solo. At least that's my view on it. Why were six LCS's the only thing present? I had never gotten the impression the LCS was supposed to be flying solo but as a part of a larger fleet. In that context it would make sense improving the ability of the fleet to operate close in shore. Deploying them on their own however... it's too small. You can't do it all on a hull that size so you have to jump modules in and out. Which works ok if your opponent can't change their tactics quickly. If they can... you're sorta screwed.

If they'd had some blue water back up like a couple of Burkes they might not have had the issues. A couple of Burkes, a more well rounded loadout for the LCS as standard and they could likely have handled anything that got thrown at them.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Have you ever seen the movie "The Pentagon Wars"? It's based on a book by a guy who was in charge of the development of the M2 Bradley; he claims it's the plain simple truth of how the Pentagon typically acquires military hardware. Here's a taste.

Yeah, I have seen it. The Bradly, which has worked out very well given its development issues is another symptom of this. We need an infantry vehicle and a cav scout and instead got something that is not great at either. That it has worked out is more a product of luck than anything. The thing is pretty well built and does whatever it is it does well...but it is not ideal for either role. I am not sure you could do better than with all the absurd things they asked it to do.

The point being that you should run for the hills when people start saying you can save money by combining missions in one platform.

The US and allies would be much better off if they had build some more F-22's for Air to Air and then built much less advanced F-35's for ground support. It would be cheaper overall and do the job better.


Also I agree with Tyyr. That deployment scenario sounds outlandishly silly.