Home » News & Analysis » Navy May Not Deploy Any Littoral Combat Ships This Year


Navy May Not Deploy Any Littoral Combat Ships This Year

The littoral combat ship USS Omaha (LCS 12) pulls into Naval Base San Diego on March 9,2018. Omaha is the newest Independence-variant littoral combat ship and one of eight LCS homeported in San Diego. US Navy photo.

This post has been updated to note that USS Little Rock will arrive in Mayport this week. 

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – The Navy may not deploy any of its Littoral Combat Ships this year despite previous plans to deploy one to the Middle East and two to Singapore in 2018, due to a confluence of maintenance availabilities that has most of the LCS fleet sidelined this year.

Three of the Navy’s four original LCSs are in maintenance now, and four of the eight block-buy ships that have commissioned already are undergoing their initial Post Shakedown Availabilities (PSA), Cmdr. John Perkins, spokesman for Naval Surface Force Pacific, told USNI News.

In addition to the deploying ships themselves being in maintenance, so too are the training ships that will be required to help train and certify the crews. The Navy upended its LCS training and manning plans in 2016 when then-SURFOR commander Vice Adm. Tom Rowden announced a change to a blue-gold crewing model and a ship reorganization: hulls 1 through 4 serve in San Diego as a test division, to help test mission module components and get them fielded; the remaining ships are divided into divisions of four ships each, responsible for either surface warfare, mine countermeasures or anti-submarine warfare. Within each division, the first ship has a more experienced crew that is responsible for training and certifying the rest of the crews, and the other three ships are deployable assets. Due to this model, not only does the deployable ship have to be in the water and ready for operations, but so does the training ship.

Previously, the Program Executive Office for Unmanned and Small Combatants (formerly PEO LCS) had told USNI News that the program was preparing to deploy one Lockheed Martin-built Freedom-variant LCS from Mayport, Fla., to Bahrain this year, as the first LCS deployment to U.S. 5th Fleet; and that it was also preparing to send two Austal-built Independence-variant LCSs from San Diego to Singapore, in the first dual-ship deployment to stretch the Navy’s ability to support multiple LCS operations in theater.

Now, the Bahrain deployment has definitely been pushed to 2019. The Navy would not state that the Singapore deployments have been delayed until 2019, but given the task of getting ships through maintenance and then getting the crews trained and certified and ready to deploy, it is unlikely that even one LCS would be able to deploy this year.

“LCS deployments on both coasts are event-based vice time-based. As such, deployments from both coasts will occur when the deploying hulls are fully prepared and the assigned Blue/Gold crews are fully trained and certified,” Perkins told USNI News.
“Training and certification of the Blue/Gold deploying crews require availability of the first LCS Surface Warfare Training Ships on the east and west coasts, respectively. At present, the projected deploying units and their respective training ships are all undergoing their initial Post Shakedown Availabilities (PSAs). Repairs and technical enhancements resulting from the lessons learned during construction of follow-on Freedom and Independence class hulls warranted extended timeframes for these PSAs, ensuring maximum material readiness in support of training, certification, and deployments. The completion of these identified shipyard events will ultimately yield platforms on which training and operations can commence in support of the next set of deployments.”

USNI News understands several things are creating longer-than-intended PSAs for these LCSs. First, the ships now entering PSA are the block-buy ships, which are somewhat different than the first four ships of the class and therefore come with their own set of lessons learned for the maintenance yards. Second, as Perkins said, the ships continue to get new capabilities backfit into them during PSA, which adds time. And third, USNI News understands that, in the aftermath of last year’s fatal destroyer collisions, the Navy is being more diligent than before about ensuring the best possible material condition of ships coming out of maintenance – additional quality assurance steps are being taken, which keeps the ships tied up in the yards a bit longer than before.

Additionally, on the West Coast, where all the Independence-variant ships are homeported, the trimaran hulls require a drydock for virtually any kind of maintenance availability, and the drydocks are in short supply as the Navy faces a high workload in the coming years.

A helicopter from the Philippine navy prepares to land on the flight deck of the littoral combat ship USS Coronado (LCS 4) during an exercise for Maritime Training Activity (MTA) Sama Sama 2017 in June 2017. US Navy photo.

In San Diego, where LCS Squadron 1 (LCSRON-1) is homeported, the first three hulls – USS Freedom (LCS-1), USS Independence (LCS-2) and USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) are in planned maintenance periods, while USS Coronado (LCS-4) is back from the most recent Singapore deployment and available to conduct some Coastal Mine Reconnaissance testing this spring and mine countermeasures mission package testing this summer, LCS Mission Modules Program Manager Capt. Ted Zobel told USNI News this week at the Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2018 symposium.

He added that, in terms of conducting mission package testing on the waterfront, the program is “hoping to loop in 1 through 3 as they come out of their availabilities.”

The Independence-variant surface warfare division includes USS Jackson (LCS-6) as the training ship, and USS Montgomery (LCS-8), USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10) and USS Omaha (LCS-12) as the ships that will operate forward as surface warfare assets. Two of the four ships are undergoing PSA now.

In Mayport, the LCSRON-2 Freedom-variant surface warfare division includes USS Milwaukee (LCS-5) as the training ship and USS Detroit (LCS-7) as a deploying ship. USS Little Rock (LCS-9) is expected to arrive this week, and USS Sioux City (LCS-11) will join after it commissions this fall, Naval Surface Force Atlantic spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Courtney Hillson told USNI News.

Milwaukee recently completed its Light Off Assessment, which certifies the engineering plant after a maintenance availability, in this case the ship’s PSA. Sailors are busy training in seamanship and navigation ahead of getting the ship back underway later this month.

Detroit is preparing for its upcoming Light Off Assessment as its PSA wraps up.

Zobel said during a panel discussion at the symposium that Milwaukee will begin testing a Surface-to-Surface Missile Module during the week of April 23, marking the beginning of developmental test for the SSMM. Over the summer, though, the SSMM equipment will be taken off Milwaukee and installed on Detroit, which will continue the developmental test and conduct operational testing beginning in the fall. Zobel said SSMM testing should be completed by December or January, and then the Detroit crew will conduct its predeployment training and certification. About a year from now, Detroit will make its maiden deployment – with the surface missile – to Bahrain.

  • Lazarus

    This is the result of the original program delay after the first two ships and sequestration delays thereafter. It just means a larger number of ships should be available for deployment next year since several will complete PSA and more crews will be trained on LCS 1-4 for smooth rotations.

    • sid

      This is the result of a corporate welfare boondoggle run amok.
      What you offer are weak excuses.

      Its been a decade since the Freedom hoisted her commissioning pennant. And to date, this ship type…LCS…has failed to execute any of its promised operational missions.

      Other than “Presence”, which consists overwhelmingly of sitting pierside.

      • Uncle Mike

        Perhaps “presence” is event-based?

      • Lazarus

        You forget that the LCS program was effectively paused for two years after the first two ships were completed. The “10 years” argument really does not hold water. Frequent CONOPS changes has also slowed the process of training multiple crews needed to keep LCS units forward for longer periods.

        • Ctrot

          Ok lets take your 2 year pause and call it an “8 years argument” instead, is that really that much better?? Come on.

        • sid

          Excuses Laz. The program was paused because the LCS was obviously a conceptual failure then.

          Can’t escape the facts as they re Laz. Freedom hoisted her commissioning pennant in 2008 and independence in 2009. Since then both variants have done little else other than garner bad headlines. as thy sit at piers somewhere.

          • Lazarus

            Just because a ship does not follow a 1980’s era model for operations does not mean it is a failure.

          • sid

            Are LCS’s deploying this year?

            NO!

            Thats a failure that no other ship type has ever managed to achieve.

            BZ!

          • PolicyWonk

            It doesn’t follow any years model for operations, because it has a hard enough time simply merely being a “ship”, because that’s all thats left. The comment from former CNO Greenert, admitted that LCS was “never intended to venture into the littorals to engage in combat”.

            LCS, theoretically means: “Littoral Combat Ship”, therefore to represent it as an equation:

            (L + C + S) – (L + C) = S

            Cheers.

          • the_artist_formerly_known_as_m

            Funny thing – the LCS deployment model is starting to look an awful lot like a traditional surface combatant.

            Except for the really large number of ships that will remain stateside for testing. That’s more like an aviation program.

        • the_artist_formerly_known_as_m

          So the excuse for current incompetence is past incompetence. Got it.

    • Ser Arthur Dayne

      FYI… I think we all know that you ahem have another username on this site that often promotes the LCS and purports to be an LCS expert. You made the mistake of replying to one of my threads once with this username when you had been arguing the other username and thought I didn’t notice. I did buddy…. Lazarus=Fleet Grand Admiral Marshall _____ —- (Rhymes with Insane and Bane)

      • ShermansWar

        I had independently come to the same conclusion.

        • Lazarus

          It is sad that you believe someone is duplicitous merely because they disagree with your opinion.

          • ShermansWar

            And you’ve spoken to me to determine how i formed my opinion? Based on what did you deduce it was ” merely” the result of a disagreement? You know nothing and i know way more than you think. There are all sorts of ways to determine identity and origin on the internet. Data match is match.’Nuff said.

      • Mk-Ultra

        “You made the mistake of replying to one of my threads once with this username when you had been arguing the other username and thought I didn’t notice”

        That only matters if hes lying about not owning the other account. If he just has 2 accounts and openly admits to it because he never tried hiding it, then you jist look a little foolish by assuming hes lying about it lol

      • Lazarus

        I have no other user name

    • Every single current procurement program would look infinitely better if we had simply committed to producing them at the rates we did their predecessors. If we had built a half dozen LCS a year starting back in 2004 they would probably cost $400m each and have all the problems worked out by now.

      • sid

        Parse all you want.

        Bottom line is, this was not that “transformational” a ship type. Only thing it brought to the table other than the historically way overated “Speed” …Speed which neither variant can come even close to accomplishing… was modularity…And that has been declared an abject failure.

        “Probably” no longer fits with the LCS ARC.

        “Actually”…on this eve of a potential battle from the sea…is the LCS is delivering nothing other than a useless cost.

        • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot

          Faster than a speeding missile, more powerful than a aircraft carrier, able to leap over submarines in a single bound, is it a cruiser? no, is it a destroyer? no, it’s super mega battle frigate (formally known as the little crappy ship).

      • Ctrot

        They might be functioning a bit better but they would still be costly to operate, fuel guzzling, lightly armed “$400 million” corvettes.

        • Duane

          No – LCS are double the size of any corvette, and vastly more capable.

          • Rocco

            Come-on not even one torpedo!!

          • Dan O’Brian

            A WWII destroyer would have the LCS for lunch and then ask for seconds

          • Duane

            A WWII destroyer wouldn’t last 20 minutes against an LCS, which would sense it from more than 100 nm out, and then greet it with a Naval Strike Missile or Harpoon long before the DD even realized it was in danger. Its little 5 in popgun would be as useful in a fight as teats on a boar hog.

          • Retired weps

            Do just a little research before you blow more smoke there admiral, the range of the LCS EADS radar is 40 miles. 100 miles??? Can I have some of the stuff you’re smoking?

          • Secundius

            Maximum Instrumental Range is ~124.27 miles, while Low Altitude Detection Range is ~13 miles…

          • Secundius

            Unfortunately the US Navy only had Four Seaplane Destroyers in WWII…

          • Ctrot

            Double the size yes, vastly more capable not by any stretch of the imagination.

            Sa’ar 5-class corvette (1300 tons): Eight Harpoon, 64 Barak SAM’s, 6 torpedo tubes, Panther helicopter.

            Braunschweig-class corvette (1900 tons): 76mm main gun, 2x 27mm guns, 4 RBS ASM, 42x RIM-116, 2x UAV helicopters

        • Costly to operate? They are 1/3 the size of a destroyer and have 1/3 the crew. Fuel guzzling? LCS is estimated to burn around 30k barrels of fuel a year compared to over 70k for a Burke. Lightly armed corvette? That’s the whole point – we need cheap ships to take the strain off the destroyers and that’s not going to happen if (like FFGX) you insist that they carry the armament of a destroyer.

          • Ctrot

            So you think that a warship that has not one tenth the combat capability of a Burke yet consumes almost half as much fuel is not “fuel guzzling”? Whether you realize it or not you just proved MY point. Thanks.

      • Duane

        Yes … but also, particular to LCS, the development of brand new technologies, particularly in unmanned systems never before deployed in the world, has always been the long pole in the tent. The LCS is just the platform. So taking a relatively short time to deploy large numbers of ships would not have been very useful until the initial MMs were ready to deploy. By the end of next fiscal year all three initial MMs will be IOC and deployable.

        • sid

          First mistake was to build hulls before the mission modules were built and operating. Anybody with a clue could see the two LCS variants were the worst possible candidates to field such technology.

          The very bogus need for speed forced the weight constraints the USN has spent 100’s of $ millions to try and find work arounds.

          Next fiscal year we will be hearing yet some other excuse why these ships…failures of ships.. cannot conduct the missions they were bought for.

          • the_artist_formerly_known_as_m

            I would argue the first mistake was breaking steel (and aluminum) before the analysis was complete. And in some cases skipping analysis steps altogether.

            Think, design, build. It works a lot better when you go in that order!

          • Secundius

            The same can be said about the “Gerald Ford’s”! Literally built from the Keel Up by Computer and Computer Simulations. And can’t meet the Standard required to make “Gerald Ford” and “its” Siblings Fully Operational, either in Concept or Real…

        • I think the mission modules are somewhat unnecessary. The basic seaframe is sufficient for the vast majority of the Navy’s day to day peacetime missions and could even play a useful role in the sort of small scale wars we’ve been fighting for the past 70 years.

          • sid

            Mission modules…and goofy speed which wrecked the whole idea… is what these ships are built around!

          • Duane

            Then you don’t understand what is in the MMs. They represent the core capabilities that will define 21st century naval warfare … in terms of networked systems and unmanned systems.

          • Other than the MIW module (which is also by far the most expensive and least ready), the others are basically the same sorts of sensors and weapons that are found on every other warship in existence.

          • Todd

            The only module that actually works and have proven itself in combat is the “Lockmart spokes-mouth” module which the fleet admiral demonstrates every day.

          • the_artist_formerly_known_as_m

            Funny thing is if you read the LCS PowerPoint slides from early 2000s – mission modules were supposedly the key to unlocking LCSs warfighting potential.

    • ShermansWar

      Ships 1-4 will be used for training only, didn’t you get the memo, lol.

      Smooth rotations he says, lol. Let it never be said you don’t have a great sense of humor.

      • BMC retired

        Yep, I get it, they need TWO crews to operate this super duper complicated ship that has: one pee shooter 57mm optically guided gun, and a sea ram. Yep, that sums it up, it’s vastly more complicated than a destroyer (which only has one crew) and it will take years to master. I understand fully now, makes perfect sense. In fact I highly recommend THREE crews, with one crew ‘resting’ (for 3 months at a time) from all of the taxing training they had to do.

        • Duane

          You keep forgetting those OTH ASCMs that all the newer Arleigh Burkes don’t have.

          Lets see, how bout we have a naval duel, you in some other ship with a “pea shooter” 5 in gun with a max range of 13 miles and a 76 pound warhead … and me in an LCS at any range greater than 13 miles and a launcher full of Harpoons with 500 pound warheads … don’t bet your life on the outcome.

          • Retired weps

            We’ve all heard of p e n is envoy, well, the fleet admiral has a severe case of gun envy, since ‘his’ is only 57mm, which is well well well below average.

          • Secundius

            the 57mm Bofors has been in Production since 1962, and ~22 Navies use it! If it was a Bad Gun System, NO Navy in the World would be Still Using It. Consider the “Ma Deuce” which went into production in 1933, and is still used today…

          • Retired weps

            We have lots things in common with our fellow navy brothers, but that doesn’t mean we should make our ships basically defenseless against potential foes who are using much larger caliber and more deadly guns/missiles/systems etc. What would happen if the LCS ever had face off with a chinese missile boat or even a corvette? It would find the bottom of the ocean faster than you could say “sea-frame,” and please don’t insult our collective intelligence and say “that’ll never happen,” because in war the “that’s not supposed to happen” becomes the norm and the expected becomes the unexpected. If a LCS is classified as a “warship” (it’s currently classified as a Frigate) it will be expected to face the enemy in moral combat. But we we are logical and truthful (highly doubtful for the LCS lockmart fan boys) we would re-classify the LCS for what it really is, a behind the lines support ship, perhaps even a USNS ship.

          • Secundius

            As I recall, the Flight 0’s of the classes are “WIP’s” (i.e. Works In Progress) Vessels. The Flight I’s are Purpose Built…

      • Chesapeakeguy

        Don’t forget the one ship from EACH ‘division’ that will be dedicated to ‘training and testing’. Each division will consist of 4 ships, and at present there are to be 3 such divisions on each coast. So out of 24 ships, 6 of them, in addition to the first 4 production models, are dedicated to training and testing.. If those same proportions were allocated to the Burkes, that would mean about 24 of them would not be doing anything but testing and training. Think about that!

        • Duane

          Think about this then … LCS have two crews and all other Navy warships but boomers have but one crew. The same ship can complete far longer forward deployments than any other without excessive crew burnout. The Coronado completed a 13 month deployment, where most Navy ships are limited to six or at most seven months forward in WestPac.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            That’s all well and good Duane. I’m all for it personally. I am pulling for the ships crews and the ships themselves. It doesn’t change the numbers. 36% of the LCS force is devoted to stateside training and testing. There doesn’t appear to be any letup from that in the future, that the Navy’s plan is to always use that ratio going forward. The Navy says they will all be maintained in a ‘deployable’ state and status. I hope that proves to be the case if a situation arises where all ships must deploy.

          • Mike47

            Deployed? You mean it spend 10 or those 13 months tied to a pier, and the other three in a dry-dock?

        • Lazarus

          The idea with multiple crews is to have more LCS forward deployed for longer periods than would be possible with single crew ships. There should be enough ships and crews to achieve that next year. Comparisons with Burke’s are meaningless as they have a different deployment model.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            And what is the obsession with multiple crews? I don’t argue that, and the point has nothing to do with CREWS! It has to do with tying up large numbers of ships for tasks OTHER than deploying.

          • Secundius

            Actually it’s somewhat of a misnomer? Technically the LCS’s have Four Crews! Two Operating Crews (Gold and Blue) on Submarine Time Watches, and Air Crew and a Maintenance Crew for the MQ-8 “Sea Scouts” deployed on the Vessels…

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Don’t they also have a crew for each ‘module’? LOL..

          • Secundius

            I suspect they do! But how can you Pre-Train a Sailor on Equipment just being Introduced for Testing…

          • Mike47

            They apparently have a vary large crew (57) for the “Fleet admiral Dueneee” module who’s mission it is to go around telling everyone “you’re wrong.”

          • the_artist_formerly_known_as_m

            “The idea with multiple crews is to have more LCS forward deployed for longer periods than would be possible with single crew ship.”

            Nice idea, but doesn’t seem to be working in 2018 since we’ll have absolutely zero ships deployed.

            As a sidebar: why does it seem that LCS nirvana is always a year away?

    • sid

      This is the result of leadership holding on to a failed program for a decade.

  • Kypros

    Wow! I’m speechless! Can you imagine if it took this long to deploy new ship classes in WW2? It’d be 1957 before we could start fighting in the Pacific. We’d all be speaking Japanese.

    • Uncle Mike

      Only if the Pacific war was “event-based” instead of time-based…

      Funny, I don’t recall my deployments ever being event-based, unless the event was my wife wanting me home for more than 4 weeks at a time.

      • Curtis Conway

        Don’t you just love it?! If it’s not what you want, just re-define the question and the environment. That’s the ticket . . . then you try to pull off that logic in the . . . Pacific!

        • PolicyWonk

          LOL!

          This reminds me of a story in the London Times, that discovered (much to their astonishment), that after Brit Rail had the worst on-time record of any railroad on the planet (after they were privatized) for years – all of a sudden one day they were tied for best on-time performance of any rail system on planet Earth.

          They investigated what changed, and it turned out Brit Rail had simply changed the definition of “on-time” from being within a few minutes of schedule, to being within 4 HOURS of schedule.

          Viola! Awesome on-time performance!

          When LCS has problems they can’t fix (the ordnance problem for the choppers is/was a doozy!) – the USN will redefine the capability – again.

          And Duane and Lazarus will feel obligated to come to this forum to defend it. One has to wonder how exhausting it must be to get up every day, hoping to not see another major screw-up on the part of this program reported, that they’re gonna feel obligated to defend, or defect attention from.

          • El_Sid

            Err – not quite, you need a better news source.

            The UK defines on-time as within 5 minutes for most trains, 10 minutes for some long-distance trains. Switzerland uses 3 minutes, Germany looks at 6 minutes and 16 minutes, the US uses anything between 10 minutes and 30 minutes depending on distance. The UK’s record at mostly-5 minutes is about the same as Switzerland’s record at 3 minutes – but the worst delay I ever had was on a Swiss train.

            I have no idea where you got that 4 hour figure from, the one the train companies really care about is 30 minutes as that’s when they start paying compensation.

          • Rocco

            LIRR!!

          • Rocco

            Lol

          • Curtis Conway

            The Obama administration used this function a lot by redefining the standard. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and many a Democrat is calling foul when we declare the numbers using their definition, even though the facts on the ground may be somewhat different. Unemployment is a case in point.

          • Rocco

            Not to mention immigration!!!!!

          • Curtis Conway

            LOL…Not to mention CITIZENSHIP…definition of 1945 Merriam Websters Dictionary (Unabridged):
            Cit’i-zen (-zn), n. [ME. citizen; OFr, citeein, a citizen, from L. civitas, genit. civitatis, a state, city.)
            1. The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides; the freeman of a city or town, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.
            2. An inhabitant of or dweller in any city, town, or place.
            3. In a general sense, a native or permanent resident in a city or country; as, the citizens of Philadelphia; the citizens of the United States.
            4. In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise.
            Cit’i-zen, a.
            1. Having the qualities of a citizen; as, citizen soldiery.
            2. Town-bred; effeminate. [Obs.]
            Cit’i-zen-ess, n. A female citizen. [Rare]
            Cit’i-zen-ship, n. The state of being vested with the rights and privileges of a citizen.

            My how we have changed the DEFINITION!!! The earthquakes you experience in the North East are the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.

          • Secundius

            The “Enrollment Act” of 3 March 1863, (i.e. “The Rich Man War, Poor Man Fight” Act). The US Civil War was Fought and Won by Conscripted Immigrants just of the Boat. Paid a $300.00 Bounty and Citizenship to Fight in a Civil War that Most Politicians and the Rich refused to fight. On BOTH sides of the Conflict…

          • Curtis Conway

            There is a huge number in our population who can track their origin in the country back to immigration by Indentured Servants, and worked for their Freedom, then became citizens that way. May times there were slaves and indentured servants in the same place performing similar, if not exactly the same tasks.
            Many sides, not just two, of this coin. Curt’s Law #4: Context is everything.

          • Secundius

            Keep in mind with a population base of ~325-Million, less then 0.04% are in the “ALL” Volunteer US Military Service. Some of which, which “Aren’t” even the Legal Definition of being a US Citizen…

          • Curtis Conway

            I am absolutely 100% behind citizenship for Veterans. I also have a heart for those who supported our troops overseas, interpreters mostly, who must leave those environments because of threats to their lives.

          • Secundius

            And yet Donald Trump has ordered the Deportation of Foreign Born Immigrants AFTER Serving in the US Military…

          • Malph

            Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe that is only if that veteran is a felon.

          • Secundius

            Correct if I’m wrong! But when did that Stop the US Government before in the Past. Many of those that Fought in WWII came from the Prison System as a Means of Commuting their sentences…

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Do you consider that to be unfair? Personally, I think that for those here LEGALLY, but are not yet citizens, going into the military to expedite the citizenship process is a good and honorable trade off. For people who in trouble with the law, the same thing. I am old enough to remember when judges had the authority to offer a wayward youth a choice of reform school/jail or military service. It would be instructive to be able to see any numbers of such incidents to see how they turned out. As in how many were given such a choice, and how many among them stayed out of trouble after selecting the military option?

          • Secundius

            But the SAME can be said by any “Troubled” American Born Youth. And Not All of Them are being Kicked Out of the Country either. “Beggars Can’t Be Choosy” when less than 0.04% of the Population are “Willing” to actually serve…

          • Chesapeakeguy

            I think you are conflating different things here. Is it your contention that those who are being ‘thrown out of the country’ who have military service to this country are being unfairly treated? I don’t think the same can be said for any or all troubled youth, it depends on what they did and why they are ‘troubled’. Kids with Deficit Disorder are usually not eligible for military service, and if the affliction itself doesn’t disqualify them, the medicines they are prescribed usually will. Tattoos were an impediment to military service. Some of these things the military is reviewing, or did so already, so I do not know the status of some of these things. But you are right: with so few willing to sign up, the military needs options. What is really sad is that this country now has well over twice as many people as she did in WWII. With something like 140 million people, over 15 million wore a uniform in those years. With well over 300 million now, we couldn’t pot a third as many in if the situation warranted it. We’d certainly see a lot of ;conscientious objectors if the draft boards ever start up again!

          • Curtis Conway

            We can no longer afford to have the criminal mindset looking for a reset by wearing the uniform. A dispassionate and unbiased execution of your duties, ethics, morality, and accountability are real, much to the chagrin of some in the Justice Department and the FBI today.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            I hear that…

          • Rocco

            Kudos

          • Curtis Conway

            There has to be mitigating circumstances.

          • Secundius

            WWII was a “Mitigating Circumstance” too, when those NOT Serving Life Sentences and/or Death Row were “Pressed” into Military Service. Keep in mind that We Have an ALL Volunteer Military with No Draft or Compulsory Conscription. And the last time that anyone in the US Congress, tried to Reintroduce the Draft Act was in November 2017. And “DIED” a Quick Death…

          • Curtis Conway

            “Keep in mind that We Have an ALL Volunteer Military with No Draft or Compulsory Conscription.” True TODAY, not then, and Vietnam was fought with conscripts. If you want atrocities, turn your average conscript loose with $1/4 Million+ of equipment and ask them the do the right thing IN COMBAT. With the society we have today, over half will run.

          • Secundius

            Petty Theft is an “Atrocity”? In What State and What Country…

          • Curtis Conway

            I guess that depends on if you are a . . . Conservative or a Liberal. Different rules in the US than the rest of most of the planet. The movie Sicario applies much to the chagrin of many a Liberal who lives in the Emerald City, or that Liberal Bubble of a World Mindset they have. One who wrote a book recently used to head the FBI.

          • Secundius

            I’m a Republican that “Didn’t” vote for Donald Trump! You can Infer anything you want from that…

          • Curtis Conway

            A true conservative!

          • Secundius

            I don’t recall, seeing a “Set In Stone” Rules for being a Republican…

          • Curtis Conway

            There is a gulf of difference between the philosophies of conservatism and liberalism, as opposed to political affiliations of Republicans and Democrats. I’m more of a pragmatic libertarian than a conservative Republican. However, we only have two parties, and everytime a third party steps into the picture, the Democrats win, and with that group now totally out to lunch on the far Left side, society suffers with no adherence to principle. G-d made principles for a reason, and it was not so we could just ignore them. When you do, HiStory has shown that there is a bill to pay, and some to not survive when they pay THAT bill.

          • Secundius

            The Republican Party is fundamentally different from that of the Republican Party of 1934, as the 1934 Republican Party is to the Republican Party (i.e. Barry Goldwater). To that of the Republican Party of 1980’s (i.e Ronald Reagan) and the Republican Party of 2009 (i.e. the Tea Party). Which Republican Party is Your’s…

          • Curtis Conway

            I’m an amalgamation of all, but more Tea Party/Constitutionalist than anything else. Learn from HiStory, or you are bound to repeat it (the direct object ‘it’).

          • SDW

            No party has my proxy. I have not and shall never hand over my vote, time, or money to a political party. They have shown themselves to be interested only in keeping themselves in positions of power, the money flowing, and their supporters in easily controlled, narrowly defined groups managed by strident herders who practice what is called “Identity Politics” but is really Divisive Politics. They run from exhibiting any leadership knowing that by keeping things at least seeming all bad the can point fingers, stab backs, and generally feed the flames that provide smoke and heat but little or no illumination.

            (Now, do I come across as rather passionate about my disgust with parties?)

          • GeordieUncle

            Citizen-ass, n. A person who feel entitled to put down anyone they don’t agree with on any public forum he or she feels may be populated with like-minded citizens.

          • Curtis Conway

            Explain that comment to G-d @ Judgement. Citizenship in Heaven has a real definition.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            It’s like how the term ‘racist’ is defined these days. A ‘racist’ is anyone engaged in a discussion with someone on the left and winning that discussion! LOL..

          • Curtis Conway

            It’s as if Racism is now defined as following a Standard. In this ‘Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave’ with all the Freedoms we have, there was always the standard. There are far too many who did not understand ‘why they did what they did’, or ‘why it is this way’, and without that understanding, and its effect on ‘the system at large’ the function (or definition) was changed, the effects of which are not felt for some time in many cases, and when the effect IS Felt, it’s too late for the damage has already done. Everything is a system of systems, and cause and affect analysis is still relevant.

          • ShermansWar

            So, you’re saying democrats…..OK then…

          • Curtis Conway

            Up until just a few years ago, we in the United States, at the end of the day, would all agree G-d is King, His Law is true, and we will just agree to dissagree at this point because the alternative is more than just dissruptive. Today . . . you are living the ‘alternative’. How’s them apples?

          • GeordieUncle

            We do not have kings in America. This conversation was about the LCS deployment, not deities or Democrats or Republicans or conservatives or liberals or immigrants or citizens. So as your commentary manages to touch upon all of those topics it fails top fall under the category of agreeing to disagree and into the land of Coo-Coo for Coconuts.

          • Leveller

            You just defined “Curtis” in a “Nut Shell”.

          • Rocco

            Agreed kudos! & as another historical statue has no rights!!!

          • Todd

            Well, when you’re a paid Lockmart troll, it’s all good fun playing on the forum spewing forth hate while make lots of coin for every word you type. If it wasn’t for Laxarus and Dueeenee there wouldn’t be anyone to stick for the poor defenseless LCS.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            I’m not trying to get this off topic, but what you describe sounds an awful lot like what transpired in Florida leading up to the school shooting this past February. Broward County was under pressure to reduce the rates of arrest and truancy among high school aged kids. They were offered ‘rewards’ from the Fed government in the way of big money if they did so. And Broward County delivered! They did so by simply NOT arresting or detaining those kids. And THAT is why there are all those reports of the shooter being visited by the police dozens of time without being arrested, which facilitated him being able to buy the weapons that allowed him to carry out his rampage! It’s amazing how these things often mirror each other.

          • PolicyWonk

            Indeed – if you don’t like the rule: change it!

            However, it’s preferable to do so in a way so that people don’t get killed in the process.

          • ShermansWar

            You are a very astute fellow.

          • Curtis Conway

            True, and has caused problems in more than one place.

          • Curtis Conway

            We will never be able to send a Planing Hull LCS on a mission requiring Blue Water Operations in the presence of Heavy Weather, or at least if you want them to come back alive.

        • Rocco

          Isn’t that how women usually think!!!!

          • Curtis Conway

            It’s certainly how Democrats think, regardless of the environment.

          • Rocco

            Agreed

          • sid

            Its how the PEO LCS and Unmanned Systems Office thinks.

          • Pluton

            That inane and irrelevant comment was quick off the mark.

          • Rocco

            Indeed!

    • Duane

      LCS have been deployed to the West Pac since 2013.

      • Kypros

        One has been rotated. And this year, apparently non.

        • Duane

          Multiple LCS deployments to SCS since 2013.

          • sid

            Not to the SCS …To Singapore at a pier.

          • Centaurus

            They also like to get stuck in ICE !!!

    • Secundius

      As I recall the DE-413, USS Samuel B. Roberts, had to be Repaired for almost 2-months, the Day “After” just being Commissioned in 28 June 1944. For “Hitting” a Whale (i.e. Event Based) off the Maine Coast while enroute to the Norfolk Naval Base…

  • ElmCityAle

    This is a report mostly about navy process and procedure, but I’ll bet that won’t be the scope of most comments.

    • sid

      You are exactly right.

      Senior leadership has failed the Navy.

      • Duane

        zinnngggg … right over your head

        • sid

          No. I fixed it for him.

  • sid

    In the same span since the Freedom was commissioned -10 years- all but 1 of the FFG-7 OHP’s were put into service.

    The LCS was to provide shallow water MIW, ASW, and Surface Warfare. To date, not one can find a mine (except of course once), or a sub….And will not be capable of either of those two missions for another 3-5 years at best.

    The claim is they are good for surface warfare. Really? These now too expensive, prone to breakdown, pier queens will never be risked without support from the much more capable assets like the DDG’s, they were to be relieving in shallow water roles.

    What a sad joke.

    On us, the US taxpayers.

    • Curtis Conway

      Amen and Amen! I’m heartbroken for new sailors who have to serve on them.

      • Duane

        Go ahead and break your heart. LCS sailors, however, are very proud of their ships.

        • Rocco

          How do you know??

          • Duane

            They say so to the media. They don’t pay attention to the old retired geezers who populate USNI comment threads and never stop talking about the good old days of 20th century naval warfare. Yawnn!!

          • Rocco

            So if you are who you say you are you shouldn’t be on here!!
            BTW… FYI us old geezers are the ones that paved the way for you your troll to be able to brag about crappy ships of today’s Navy!!

          • Duane

            I’m old but rejected a geezer card. I have tremendous respect for 21st century sailors and their equipment, and what they do today … and do not pine for the “good old days” and talk about how the current generation has gone to heck in a hand basket.

            When I served on an SSN 40 some years ago, we didn’t put up with any of that crap from old timers … though in the sub service there was very little of that crap. We all understood that we lived and fought surrounded by technology that never stood still. We respected our forebears from the old pig boats, but there was no question that our hardware was far superior … and that our successors would sail in subs far superior to ours.

          • Rocco

            I served 40 yrs ago!! But by the way you stand firm on LCS I seriously doubt you did!!

          • Dean687

            The only thing you served on was a submarine tender there seaman recruit Duenee, then you were dishonorably discharged after 2 years.

          • Rocco

            That’s the biggest line of Bull I’ve ever heard!!!

          • Retired

            They said so because they are ‘ordered’ to say so-don’t be so dense admiral. Do you really think a young enlisted or officer is going to say what they really think? Their ‘careers’ would be over before they began. I once saw an interview with a Ltjg after the OHP’s were de-fanged saying “it was a very good thing we deleted this missile launcher because it took a lot of maintenance to keep it operational” and he said all of that with a straight face, but I’m sure he got ‘rewarded’ with a medal for his bravery and is now in charge of the LCS program.

        • Retired

          Can you imagine being an O-5 and being given a command of a corvette, the LCS, with a crew of 50 and the have to ‘share’ this command with another O-5, what a letdown! O-5’s should be commanding destroyers or as an XO of cruiser. The LCS doesn’t rate any higher than a senior LT or jr. LCDR. I guess since this is a make work for Lockmart, it might as well be make work of Navy commanders. And yes, I would be greatly embarrassed to be a crew on an LCS when visitors ask “what does this ship do?”

          • Secundius

            Actually Two Crews of 50 each (Blue and Gold), not including Testing supernumeraries…

          • Todd

            Let’s not forget all of the dedicated shore support personnel (who by the way are all civies making six figures).

          • Secundius

            As I recall the Blue/Gold Crews are using Submarine Rotation Times of 9 hours each as opposed to three duty sifts of 8-hours each…

    • Retired weps

      Don’t be so mean spirited there Sid, the LCS doesn’t have to ‘find’ subs, the subs will find it-very easily (and take one for the team).

      • Duane

        Any halfway decent sub can always find any surface ship. That’s why there are only two real classes of ships … submarines, and targets.

        • sid

          Both LCS variants will be easy pickings.

          • Duane

            So says the expert.

        • Retired weps

          Well, when you ‘broadcast’ your location from hundreds of miles away with massive water jets and an extremely noisy plant, you simply don’t need a sonar, you’ll find the subs quick enough, and the fleet will know the subs are around when they see you explode sky high.

          • David Oldham

            Since they will be in shallow water when torpedoed, they can become stationary coastal defense batteries.

          • Secundius

            Depends on what you consider “Shallow Water”?/! “Littoral” depths is anything up to ~280-meters in depth…

          • dboconnor

            A battery with one 57mm gun and two 30mm guns. Awesome firepower! Range of 8500m on the “big” gun and 5000m of the smaller guns.

          • Dean687

            That’s a great idea, let’s take a bunch of LCS and make artificial islands in the s china sea.

          • Secundius

            There already is a Ready Made Artificial Island called the USS Gerald Ford. that CAN’T even meet the 99.5% Standard for Catapult Operations (89.585%)…

          • Rocco

            Stupid comment as usual!!!

          • Duane

            Water jets aren’t noisy in the water column, as sensed by submerged sensors. Props are much noisier … a cavitating prop from a typical destroyer with high rotation speeds is about the noisiest thing in the water, next to an explosion, and can easily be heard from tens of miles away by any sub with a decent sonar.

            Besides LCS rarely travel at flank speed. It’s only for chasing high speed targets in the littorals. For ASW work, LCS and any other ASW ship have no need for high speed, given that the deployed ASW aircraft fly at very high speeds, and their Mk 54 torpedoes are also much faster than any sub can go. A ship going very high speed on the surface just makes it a lot harder to sense a sub.

          • Retired weps

            Wow, you apparently know nothing about ASW. Have you never heard of ASW tactics, one does not cavitate one’s screw when hunting subs? Have you never heard of prairie/masker systems that cover up the cavitation and noise of the plant? Perhaps you never heard of the Spruance class destroyer which was designed and built from the keel up to be a extremely quiet and an a very effective sub hunter with it’s powerful sonar suite and systems? Have you never heard of shipboard ASW torpedoes, nixie, ASROC, etc? You seem to have no clue, you seem to think that a very noisy ship with systems to mask it’s noise, no organic sensors, no weapons, makes a great ASW platform. Why to do blather on and on about you creds when you seem to have none? That’s the question we want answered here.

      • PolicyWonk

        But you’re missing the point – when the enemy sub finds the mighty LCS, it’ll instantly send it to the bottom, and then we’ll know where the sub is!

        • Rocco

          Hahaha lol

        • TransformerSWO

          That’s what cynical ASW guys call a “flaming datum.”

    • DaSaint

      By the time ‘all systems are go’, the Freedom will have served 15 years, and have 10 years of life remaining. Can’t make this stuff up.

      • Duane

        No you can’t make this stuff up. By the time we finish building and deploying the last of the Arleigh Burkes, the Flight Is will be nearly ready for retirement. Ditto for the Nimitz and Ford class CVNs. That’s how it goes with large ship classes.

        And btw, LCS have been regularly deploying since 2013.

        • Rocco

          Ford???

      • PolicyWonk

        Yep – and by that point their appointment at the breakers will already be penciled in!

      • Rocco

        & not even worth target practice!

    • Pat Patterson

      And they certainly can’t find anything when they are all in maintenance phases and don’t deploy.

      • PolicyWonk

        It would be fair to assume that was apparently the plan to begin with.

        This is what culminates the ultimate Corporate Welfare Program!

        Maximum cost for lowest possible ROI (for the taxpayer), with highest possible maintenance requirement – all designed to ensure the LCPQ (“littoral combat pier queen”) fleet can execute its intended mission.

    • Duane

      The MCM package is the world’s first and only remote mine hunting and mine deactivation system, all of the components have been individually tested successfully, and the full MCM to LCS integration effort will culminate in IOC by next year, a year ahead of schedule. The old sweeps are scheduled to start retiring in 2020.

      The ASW MM will feature the Navy’s best surface ship sonar system, the VDS, and other components, and it is on track for IOC by the end of this year. SuW is complete but for the final on board integration testing this year of the SWMM, the new 24-cell Hellfire vertical launcher. The Navy will select the winner of the OTH ASCM procurement by the end of this spring, and start equipping LCS. Shipboard testing for the new modified cannister launcher for LRASM will also take place this spring, and within the next 18-24 months, after which LCS will deploy the world’s most advanced long range heavy ASCM.

      With the block buy ships coming out of their PSAs this year, it is setting up nicely for continuously deployments to Bahrain and Singapore, 4 ships each, starting next year.

      • sid

        If you say so Duane. We’ll see if these ships can limp to Bahrain and Singapore to sit at a pier next year.

      • Graeme Rymill

        The Congressional Research Service’s report “Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program:Background and Issues for Congress”, April 5, 2018 says: “The Navy’s plan is to conduct MCM [Mine Countermeasures] MP [Mission Package] DT/OA [Developmental Tests/Operational Assessments] in FY 2020 and achieve IOC in FY 2021.”

      • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot

        A anti-submarine, ship destroying, mine sweeper! and it can do all of these things at 40 knots, Amazing!!! Let’s retire the rest of the Navy, we obviously don’t need aircraft carriers, submarines, cruisers, or even destroyers any more. Long live the LCS!

      • Refguy

        Are you sure it’s the first and only? Doesn’t it have to be fielded before any other system? Or is promising it enough to qualify? What if someone else actually deploys one while we’re still promising?

        • Secundius

          The “Aluminum Firing Pin” or Mk. 6 Exploder of the American Mk. 14 Torpedo, used a copy of the WWI German “TMA” Sea Mine. Which was never meant to be used in a Torpedo…

          • Refguy

            Thanks for the history lesson (no sarcasm, I appreciate you historical perspective on many issues). So the Germans were first, and for a while only, because they invented it and fielded it first. We might have been the first and only to use field it in an inappropriate application.

          • Secundius

            The Imperial German Navy “Never” used the “Aluminum Firing Pin” in Their Own Torpedoes, which make’s Anyone to Wonder who’s Bright Idea was it to be used in Torpedoes for the US Navy…

          • Refguy

            I understand that, but I interpreted your post as saying that they DID use it in mines, which is what it was designed for. If so, they were the first to use it in an appropriate application. Did I misinterpret your first post?

          • Secundius

            The “TMA” was an Aluminum Anti-Submarine Mine (Purpose Built), Not a Magnetic Anti-Shipping Mine…

          • Refguy

            I understand that it was a contact detonator. Your original point, I think, was that when we used it as a contact detonator on torpedos, it didn’t work. Both our magnetic and contact detonators were faulty.

          • Secundius

            Keep in mind that the Mark 6 Exploder was only Tested Twice, on a Mark 10 Torpedo in 8 May 1926 before going into product. The First “Failed” to Sink Test Target, Second “Didn’t”. Test Target was an L-class Submarine…

      • Mike47

        “The best surface ship sonar system” not that’s really really funny. Perhaps we should start retiring all of the Arleigh Burkes since the LCS is so superior in every way. What say you dueneee? Retire the Burkes? yes or no? and don’t give us a bunch of your “every ship is an asset” gobbly gook double speak.

        • Secundius

          As I recall, “Duane” mentioned something about “Remote” Mine Hunting. Unless the AB’s have the same feature of being “Remote”. Or maybe One AB controlling another AB is considered “Remote”…

      • the_artist_formerly_known_as_m

        No, Duane. The MCM module IOC is scheduled for 2021.

        But I would not be surprised if it slips again.

    • PolicyWonk

      As if that wasn’t enough – we’ve got the Independence class that requires use of a dry dock to perform maintenance.

      A lot of use these things will be out in the real world, when we have to send a “littoral combat floating dry dock” (LCFDD) along with them.

      • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot

        Will the LCFDD have some missiles strapped on to it? If so, that would make as powerful as the LCS (hmmm, now there’s an idea worth looking into, and since it’s a dry dock, it can repair itself).

        • PolicyWonk

          It would probably have more room for growth than the LCPQ’s do…

    • Rocco

      Agreed

  • Sir Bateman

    Just think how much better off the USN would be in if they had never gone down the LCS and DDG-1000 path and instead developed proper Perry and Tico class replacements. Something roughly akin to the now in development FFG(X) and the CGBL that was looked at in the late ’80s.

    • Curtis Conway

      AND STILL consuming budget!!!

    • Bubblehead

      I wouldnt lump Zumalt with LCS. The Zums have some potential and could become very worthy ships. Add vulcano for the 155’s and put an aegis system with Enterprise. And for petes sake add a CIWS.

      The prob with the Zums relate to only building 3 which obviously causes sky rocketing costs. Just like B2. Then to save $oney they cut the meat out.

      • Sir Bateman

        Isn’t that what they call an “acquisition death spiral”?

      • DaSaint

        Well actually, they have their own issues. Lack of a round for the gun. Lack of a phased array radar. Problems with the hybrid drive. Lack of sufficient CIWS. But otherwise they’re great (sarcasm).

        • Mk-Ultra

          You mean to say they discovered problems when new technology is actually fielded? That’ unheard of!

          • tpharwell

            Move along.

          • Rocco

            Agreed

          • Mk-Ultra

            did i disturb your safe space?

          • PolicyWonk

            No – they simply forgot to do the addition, subtraction, and division for the guns and rounds when the plans were altered to build 3 sea-frames, instead of the 30 that were planned.

            A minor accounting problem ;-P

          • Rocco

            Lol

          • Mk-Ultra

            weren’t the ships already being built when the cut was made?

          • Secundius

            Yes for the Flight 0’s, but in 2014 the US Hse.of Rep. Funded the Flight I’s of the class…

          • PolicyWonk

            Nope. I believe hey had plenty of time to figure this one out.

          • Mk-Ultra

            how do you know?

        • Ctrot

          The lack of a round for the gun is directly related to building only 3 vessels.

          • DaSaint

            One normally finalizes gun systems and their ammunition well before the design of a new ship. Said another way, the system should have been mature enough prior to the Zumwalt class selection.

          • Ctrot

            The issue isn’t system maturity, it is economics. The round for the Zumwalt class gun is specific to those guns. Spreading the R&D and procurement costs for that round across 3 hulls instead of 32 hulls caused the cost per round to go to north of a million bucks.

          • Duane

            You’re ignoring the 80 cell VLS, and the fact that the Zums were purpose built with oversized electric plants to be the first ship to deploy railguns in a few years. No other US Navy ship but a Ford class CVN has that capability. The railguns will replace the 155mm guns.

        • Bubblehead

          Every one of those problems (except possibly hybrid drive) is a fault of lack of funding and shortcuts the USN had to make because it was broke (thx Obama). It initially had a phased array radar as you put it. It was supposed to the AMDR radar which was X (horizon) and S (volume) radar. Because Obama cut all the money out of the military budgets with Sequestor the USN was forced to cancel the X portion of the radar (or maybe it was the S portion, cant remember).

          And the USN had an awesome round for the 155’s also. But once the class was cancelled (again thx Obama) the round became too expensive to procure in such small numbers. As Bateman correctly put it, the acquisition death spiral.

          Adding a CIWS can be accomplished over night and would be worth the increase in radar signature.

          In my opinion we are approaching the era where if a ship wants to survive, stealth will be a requirement. Advances in technology in hypersonics, ASBM & mass swarming drones to name a few.

          Speaking of the 155mm Round for the AGS. It has pretty awesome capability that the USN and USMC could desperately use. There is a way to reverse the death spiral with Trumps increased defense budget. Feasibility to add 155mm guns to Amphibs. USMC drastically needs the firepower and it is a lot cheaper & practical than firing HIMARS rockets off a LPD helo pad and truck. Put a few 155’s on the San Antonio’s, including the new LPD’s, buy the round in bulk. You instantly solve one of the largest problems the USN & USMC has had for half a century since the retirement of the Battleships. Instant, massive firepower to not only support Marines ashore but Anti-Ship. It is easier said than done because I know the gun has large below deck requirements but it would be worth a study.

          • DaSaint

            If you feel that those were the primary reasons for cancellation, then I guess we can expect the Navy to reinstate the program, now that funding is at much more acceptable.

            And the cancellation because of the reduction to 3 vessels missed the point. How many rounds would make it affordable? If there were 30 in the class and 100 rounds each, then 3000 rounds is just as affordable as 1000 rounds for 3 ships.

            If the round was successful and had applications on other future classes, then again the affordability would be distributed.

            It either worked or didnt, but trust and believe that if it worked the Navy would have been kicking and screaming for it, and finding further platforms for it.

          • PolicyWonk

            Obama didn’t have to kill the military or its budget: according to the Spring 2009 Report on Force Readiness to the POTUS (US Joint Chiefs of Staff), our military was at its lowest state of readiness since Vietnam before he even took office.

            It wasn’t just the troops that were exhausted from the effects of two incompetently managed wars, it was the trillion dollars worth of trucks, tanks, ships, aircraft, weapons that was now in dire need of overhaul and/or outright replacement. And of course, that doesn’t count adding new ships, aircraft, etc., to the fleet as part of the normal defense outlay.

            Add to that, the worst economic disaster since the Great Recession – and guess what’s going to happen?

            Obama didn’t have to screw it up: that was done for him.

          • Rocco

            Yes by letting Bush jr exasperate a 10 yr plus war!!

          • David Oldham

            That “economic disaster” was over not so many months into Obama’s first term. Obama screwed it up because the man is a radical America hating ideologue and he for the most part got what he was after.

          • tpharwell

            Not according to my wallet.

          • PolicyWonk

            That is nonsense – and we’re still recovering from the effects of that mess even today, and will be for years because a lot of it was financed by incurring new debt (Obama, according to many economists, didn’t spend enough).

            So now instead of being fiscally responsible as revenues starting coming in, the GOP in their infinite wisdom, decided that instead of paying down the national debt, or investing the money into desperately needed infrastructure or revamping our military, it was better to give a whopping tax break to the ultra wealthy and their corporate donors, while sacrificing our economic future under the fig leaf of “tax reform”. And no reputable economist considers this so-called “tax reform” to be anything less than a declaration of open class warfare against the middle and poorer classes, in addition to the most fiscally irresponsible act of the century.

          • Rocco

            You don’t have to add 155’s to amphibs , just stick a howitzer out the hangar bay doors & let the grunts do the rest!!! Lol

        • Rocco

          Lol

    • Pat Patterson

      Amen on that!

  • sid

    As this venue is read by many folks on active duty…I ask this question..Also ask it of Ms. Eckstein…

    1. Has a USS Independence class LCS come alongside to conducted a replenishment at sea, more than the one time the Independence came alongside as a test a few years ago?

    If so, why the dearth of any footage?

    2. There is footage of both the Freedom and Fort Worth alongside. However, has anyone ever witnessed a Freedom calss LCS alongside in more than seastate 1 and or at night?

    If there is one thing the USN has just loved to show the world since WWII, is its ability to UNREP, and carrier ops. A simple google will bring up hundreds of examples both old and new. But all I can find are couple of vids of the Freedom and Fort Worth taking on fuel in flat calm daytime conditions, and only 1 vid of the Indpendence making an approach and appearing to break away.

    The lack of bragging about them acting like ships at sea strongly suggests that these waterjet propelled exotic hulls have significant concerns with maneuverability alongside.

    And thats a showstopper if they want to make them blue water frigates.

    • Sugar Dunkerton

      I’ve conducted 10-15 UNREPs with a LCS-2 Variant. a few of them were Sea State 3. 1 of them was Sea State 3-4, 30kts of wind and transitioned into night. The lack of footage is more from a lack of opportunities (oiler availability) than a lack of capability.

      • Curtis Conway

        Did you ever see them in heavier seas?

        • sid

          youtube…Or it didn’t happen.

      • sid

        Which ship Sugar?

        And finding it hard to believe somebody didnt have a camera out in 15 unreps

      • sid

        Oh, and Sugar…

        We aren’t talking about in the sim….

        • Mk-Ultra

          Why are you acting like such a girl over his comment?

          • sid

            Interesting answer. Have you been aboard an LCS conducting a RAS?

          • Duane

            It’s jusy the nature of these LCS haters to write like jerks. They apparently can’t help themselves.

          • sid

            Still waiting for any -credible- evidence an Independence class LCS has conducted a RAS…

          • Mk-Ultra

            I see that. it seems its the same people in the same circle jerk, reinforcing their ignorance by agreeing with each other regardless of the comment and literally just regurgitating the same copy/paste posts.

    • Curtis Conway

      The LCS platform MUST UNREP/CONREP because they have such short legs. If ever deployed with a Battlegroup they will almost certainly be tethered to the tanker, particularly in heavy weather. Heaven forbid they EVER experience the icy waters of the Arctic in heavy weather. The LCS is a travesty. ‘Plan for the worse and hope for the best’ is the axiom, and what we have here is iffy even when in optimal circumstances. If it ever takes damage………

      • muzzleloader

        I think of the Falklands war and the type 21 frigates and type 42 destroyers that we’re lost. The thought of an LCS being on the receiving end of a Sunburn or a Klub S is not pleasant.

        • BMC retired

          The LCS huff, puffs, blows water geysers out of it’s hawse pipe in sea state 1, and bucks like a bronco (helo landing would be interesting). Yep, it’s pretty much useless after sea state 2.

  • Knox driver

    The entire mighty LCS fleet down for maintenance. What a joke. I suppose a certain fleet admiral is crying in his latte right about now.

    • Mk-Ultra

      If you actually read the article, you’d see it’s not what you think it is. Go read it. It’ll probably make you cry

      • sid

        It an entire ship type not contributing anything at all to the USN’s mission a full decade since the first LCS hit the water.

        • Duane

          That’s simply not true. LCS have served multiple deployments in the SCS since 2013. And if you’d bothered to read the post, LCSs are heavily engaged in developing mission modules which themselves are leading the navy in development and testing of unmanned systems, from UAVs to USVs and UUVs, to the latest generation OTH ASCMs, to networked naval warfare systems including CANES.

          All of that 21st century stuff – the LCS is the lead platform for the whole US Navy.

          • sid

            Well. We know where we can find your 21st Century platforms…

            At a pier!

          • sid

            “That’s simply not true. LCS have served multiple deployments in the SCS since 2013.”

            Not much time in the SCS at all Duane. Total time spent there by LCS’s can be measured in days

          • Lazarus

            Have you even seen any actual LCS OPSKED Sid?

        • Mk-Ultra

          not contributing anything at all? A google search has given me a list of deployments the USS Freedom has seen in the decade its been in service

          strange how a ship that doesnt contribute anything at all is deployed. how does that work?

          • Secundius

            22 February 2010, made Drug Bust of ~2.127- metric tons of cocaine, 3 March 2010, made Drug Bust of ~1.7-metric tons of cocaine, 11 March 2010, made Drug Bust of ~2.25-metric tons of cocaine and 2013 during the Philippine Typhoon “Haiyan” Relief Mission. Look Harder…

          • Mk-Ultra

            i think you’re confused? you quite literally just proved my point that they’ve been deployed completely contradicting the claim of “not contributing anything at all”

            Read Harder….

          • Secundius

            The Three Drug Bust in 2010, were done during Freedom Sea Trails off the Columbian Coast. Instead of using “Wikipedia”, try read through that US Navy Naval Records…

          • Mk-Ultra

            can you show me where exactly i quoted wikipedia? literally the only one who posted anything from apparently wikipedia was you….. did you confuse yourself that much you thought your own comments was made by me…..?

            use your Brain Harder…..

          • Secundius

            Wikipedia didn’t record the Three Drug Busts and Their Amounts Seized. And barely touches the Typhoon Incident…

          • Mk-Ultra

            Cool. Unfortunately that’s not what I asked you…. Look Harder….

            You said “instead of using Wikipedia” so show me where exactly I used Wikipedia…. Read Harder…..

            It’s ok to admit you messed up and confused yourself. You’ll avoid looking more foolish.

          • Secundius

            That wasn’t exactly your question either!/? You ask for and Exact Accounting of Usage (i.e. Word for Word) not a General Accounting. You original comment is a General Accounting (i.e. “not contributing anything at [all]”! Considering the Typhoon was mentioned, that wound apply to [all]…

          • Mk-Ultra

            You just keep burying yourself more and more. You’re not very bright.

            For a 3rd time, Im asking you to show me where exactly i quoted wikipedia….. Use your brain harder…

            Do you understand that simple question? Think harder…..

          • Secundius

            I gave you the name of the Ship, the Dates, the Captured Amounts and event the Storm. And looked up Info on the Freedom and found “Nothing”! Were you even Trying, or did you Think that Nobody would Call Your Bluff. Now “IT’S” your time to Cough Up Information Sources, that claim there aren’t any! After all my make the Same Demands against Others. Don’t construct a Trap, if you don’t have a Clue on how it actually works. “Caught by your own petard”…

          • Mk-Ultra

            its hilarious how hard you’re trying to switch it all up. Focus Harder….
            you said, “Instead of using “Wikipedia” and all I asked is, “show me where exactly I quoted Wikipedia”. do you understand the question?

            now again, the 4th time, quote/show me where exactly I used Wikipedia which made you said I should not use wikipedia.

            Think Harder….. you made the claim, now prove it. Read Harder…..

          • Secundius

            What were your Information Sources other than NONE…

          • Mk-Ultra

            So you were in fact just making things up just to run your mouth? ok cool. thats all you had to admit. thanks. took you long enough 🙂

          • Secundius

            No, actually you were when you made the Claim that you couldn’t Find ANY Successful Accomplishments made by USS Freedom. I Provided FOUR, while YOU provided “ZERO”…

          • Mk-Ultra

            Just so we’re clear. You CANNOT show me where exactly I used Wikipedia, like you said I did. So I proved my point and you were in fact making things up just to run your mouth. Thanks Dork.

            Now for the best part. This entire time, because you werent smart enough to pay attention you were confused this entire time.

            Read my comment again but real slow. 1 word at a time. You dont want to make the same mistake twice.

            “not contributing anything at all? A google search has given me a list of deployments the USS Freedom has seen in the decade its been in service

            strange how a ship that doesnt contribute anything at all is deployed. how does that work?”

            1) I was REPLYING to Knox Driver that said the LCS fleet was down for maintenance and HIM calling it a joke.
            2)You CLEARLY did not see me questioning HIS COMMENT of not contributing anything at all
            3)me literally telling him a google search showed otherwise
            4)and then me mocking him how exactly does a ship that doesnt contribute is deployed.

            That’s all the opposite of you WRONGFULLY saying I made the claim i couldnt find any successful accomplishments LOL. Read Harder……

            Now I just provided you with FOUR clear cut points of how YOU made yourself look like a complete fool and incorrectly accusing of a claim I obviously never said if you simply paid attention. Pay Attention Harder…..

            Nice going LOL

          • Secundius

            Question? Why are you STILL answering any of the Posts. I would have thought by NOW it’s time to Move On. And I don’t recall “Operational Deployment” was in your First Comment. If it Was, then Typhoon “Haiyan” was in its First Deployment as a Mission Related Disaster Relief Ship…

  • airider

    My god….can we just move forward with better ships in production….pleeeezzzz!!!!

  • Curtis Conway

    The LCS Program was ill conceived, and executed even worse. Now it is consuming resources, and providing no support to combat forces afloat. When LCS does join forces afloat, it will be the least effective element in the battle group, and require constant attention and over watch, for it cannot take care of itself in a contested environment. WHY are we wasting so much time and resources on something that provides so little . . . except provide jobs to those who built them, make political points for the politicians who sponsored their construction in their districts, and paid off those who invest in the manufacture and equipage of these hulls? The LCS is a net loss for the US Navy w/r/t capability return on investment, and an outright bad deal, and waste of capital for the American people.

    These vessels should be relegated to Mine Countermeasure Missions, supporting SOF and Marine Raider Battalions, and employed independently only in NORTHCOM (except Arctic region) and SOUTHCOM AORs. If they want to play with the ARGs, MAGTAFs, and MEUs, they can have at it, but as a Surface Combatant expected to handle itself in Blue Water during heavy weather, and the Arctic Region with thin/floating ice . . . these vessels are a disaster, and should never be left alone.

    The worst part is these vessels will be part of the Surface Combatant ship count.

    Just my 2ȼ.

    • DaSaint

      They still have to go through those PSAs. But what I don’t understand is why the earlier batch vessels haven’t completed theirs already.

      • Curtis Conway

        For the rest of their existence the LCS will be an Albatross around the neck of the US Navy. Training, logistics, operations, whatever aspect you want to look at…until they STOP calling it a US Navy Surface Combatant. It is a little more combat capable than one of the ships it was meant to replace (Minesweepers). The operational characteristics of the hull and propulsion systems make it uniquely unworthy of certain environments, and some of those environments are where we may very well operate.

        • Rocco

          Indeed

      • Duane

        They did their PSAs years ago.

        If you’d actually read the article here we are commenting on, you’d have learned those early vessels are doing crew training and qualification for the rest of the fleet. And they are doing the systems integration testing for the mission modules and various components thereof.

    • PolicyWonk

      Sir,

      Didn’t you read the article stating that the USN is altering its strategy in lieu of the fact that the 355-ship fleet isn’t likely to occur?

      They’re going to increase the capabilities of the existing fleet and not concentrate so much on “numbers” (cough cough), because they’ve belatedly realized that the “littoral combat pier queen” (LCPQ) fleet isn’t capable of doing anything other than sucking taxpayers dollars for construction, maintenance, and pier space.

      As we’ve discussed in the past – just because you’re buying ships doesn’t mean you’re adding capabilities or assets. Your experience in the USN and commentary demonstrates that well designed warships are major assets that are used relentlessly until they become so run down they’ve become liabilities, after which they’re either scrapped or mothballed.

      The genius of the LCPQ fleet, is that they skipped the “well designed and used relentlessly” part and went directly to being liabilities, without so much as hurting a fly.

      • Rocco

        Agreed not to mention we can’t build ships fast enough to replace what eventually gets decommed never mind what to replace them with!!

      • Curtis Conway

        How many LCS platforms will be afforded the inflated title of Surface Combatant? Need to move those over to an Armed Auxiliary MCM ship. It wouldn’t be the first time we had something helping combat forces without the combat title.

        • PolicyWonk

          That wouldn’t be bad – but it sure is an expensive minesweeper. This assumes of course, they can safely propel themselves to the minefield without breaking down.

          • Curtis Conway

            If they are hauling SOF or Marine Raiders, the propulsion will most likely always work out of self preservation. Some story for anti-drug ops in NORTHCOM/SOUTHCOM areas.

      • Duane

        Actually, LCS are lead platforms for the very specific new capabilities the Admiral described … including unmanned systems, networking, and reconfigurable for virtually any new system the Navy comes up with in decades to come, such as fleet electrinic warfare.

        • sid

          You forgot about sitting at the pier looking like a derelict.

        • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot

          So what you saying fleet admiral, is that perhaps twenty years hence we finally find something that the LCS can actually do.

      • Todd

        I think the LCB (Littoral combat barge) has lots of promise, after all, they fired a Harpoon successfully off of it, therefore that makes it just as powerful as the LCS, but a heck of a lot cheaper. I higly suggest we go into full rate production, and just to be nice, we’ll give the contract to lockmart.

  • Ser Arthur Dayne

    I for one am shocked. I thought that the LCS was the most formidable surface warfare platform on the planet… I am shocked and appalled. What do we need? LCS!!! When do we need it? NOW!!! Amirite??!

    • Curtis Conway

      LOL!!!!

    • Mk-Ultra

      Did you even read the article?

      • Duane

        These t-words never read or comprehend .. they just t-word.

      • Rocco

        He’s kidding,!!

    • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot

      We’re still waiting for the Photon torpedoes module, the “Fri ck king laser module” has already been installed and tested by Dr Ev i l, and it was a great success, it hit and suck the big orange target after only 20 tries.

  • Curtis Conway

    LOL!!!

  • Ed L

    Not surprised at all.

  • D. Jones

    The LCS is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful ship I’ve ever known in my life.

    • Todd

      it’s too bad the Battle Expresso Maker module is so finicky, every sailor need a strong shot before going into battle with this paper bag

      • Adrian Ah

        Latte and Coffee Ship

        • Retired

          LCS otherwise known as the Littoral Coffee Shop (hey, we finally found a mission for it).

          • Adrian Ah

            It can be like those Snack trucks that roll up to warehouses and factories at morning or afternoon tea, except LCS can do it between warships. It has huge storage facilities for twinkies, sandwiches, and espresso machines, and it can use it’s much vaunted Fire Scout as a transport drone between ships.

          • Secundius

            In defense of Both LCS classes both share a feature that rarely talked about. Rapid Deployment! Both are able to Cruise at High Speed (i.e. Flank Speed) for up to 24-hours and deliver up to 5 USMC ACV-1.2’s instead of FEU Mission Modules to a Hot Spot. And support them for 3-days until the “Cavalry” (i.e. MEU) arrives…

    • Bhess

      I get it. Manchurian Candidate.

  • Todd

    The LCS fleet not patrolling the vast ocean? Apparently the ‘Bow down to the chinese’ module isn’t working. They best get that working before any more so called south china sea patrols, so the chinese will get very upset and expand their nine dash line all the way to Hawaii.

    • PolicyWonk

      The “Bow to the Chinese” mission module is running late, but have no fear, because the much anticipated “Fleet Septic Pump” and “Carrier Bottom Cleaning” mission packages are on their way!

  • Chesapeakeguy

    There are two very good articles in this month’s “Proceedings Magazine” about the proposed FFG and the electric drive of the Zumwalts. Those articles are, respectively, titled “Keep The Newest Frigate On Course”, and “Electric Drive Becomes Reality”. The first article is written by someone (Cdr. Daniel Straub) who commanded both a Perry class (USS Ingraham FFG-61) and a LCS (USS Montgomery LCS-6). The second article is written by long tome Proceedings contributor Edward Walsh. You should check them out if you haven’t already…

  • Adrian Ah

    The aim of the LCS is to give money to LM, and jobs.

    If the LCS isliterally just going to sit dockside, then there’s an additional job for workers- dismantle them. Why have 20 ships wasting valuable space?

    Really- just pay off Austal and LM, stop making the LCS, and either build more destroyers of frigates.

  • Adrian Ah

    The biggest realistic stumbling block of the LCS is it’s tiny range. Forget front line work- even at it’s conception, it was never meant to be front line- it was meant to find and remove mines, detect subs, and shoot rowboats.

    Range can only be increased in two ways- remove current propulsion and install slower propellers and engines, or increase the amount of fuel carried. If half the aviation storage area is convert to carrying fuel, the range could be roughly doubled, giving it a range between 4000-5000nm. Then it becomes possible for it to do the same work that other nations use OPV’s for. It can do patrols, anti piracy work. It can carry the smaller B version fire scout for scanning. Without a manned helicopter, or the large C version fire scout, there is more room on the Independence flight deck to put a couple more 30mm guns. Then it can truly relieve the destroyers from minor anti piracy and patrol duties and free them up for serious duties.

    Make the conversion. Forget the other modules. Choose and start building the other frigate asap .

    • Duane

      The range is near 4,000 nm, plenty for a littoral warship. It’s not a WW Two convoy escort taking merchantmen across the Atlantic or Pacific. And being shallow draft it can put into thousands of harbors and ports that the big bluewater ships cannot, so it can get fuel in a lot more places, and of course, it can be serviced by a Navy oiler just like its big sisters.

      • the_artist_formerly_known_as_m

        According to an article in Proceedings, the Freedom class has to UNREP almost daily when operating above 13 knots.

        Range/endurance seems to be yet another major shortfall.

        • Dean687

          That 4000 mile range the fleet admiral is so proud of means the LCS has an oiler in tow.

          • Secundius

            Freedom has a Cruising Range of ~3,500nmi (i.e. ~4,027-smi.) at ~14kts and Independence is ~4,100nmi (~4,718smi) at ~18kts…

        • Lazarus

          Untrue. Please cite article.

      • Retired

        So a US Navy warship is going to “put into” a port where no US Navy ship has ever been and take on fuel from unknown sources. What fantasy world are we talking about here admiral? I hear they have space at the Oakland yacht club, it’ll blend in nicely with all of the other ‘pleasure’ craft.

  • disqus_CbFK3MPhJu

    the best european technology American tax payers can buy.

    • SvD

      If you say so… I doubt that the few foreign parts are too blame here.

  • DaSaint

    Been offline all day, and now home to this…
    Oh boy!!

  • Mr. Speaker

    Time to permanently shelve plans to forward deploy LCS and just use them to augment the USCG.

    • Ser Arthur Dayne

      That is really not a bad idea; however, it seems to infuriate the Coast Guard servicemembers who post on this site. They seem to think it’s a “haha screw the Coasties!” and “don’t be dumping your junk & problems on us!” …. which to me is missing the “Bigger Picture” … the LCS — and I believe nearly everyone on this site and with objectivity believe this — it’s a real failure as a US Navy warship. HOWEVER, as the Coast Guard by definition is not primarily for fighting wars with ships against other ships, it could DEFINITLEY use the LCS much more effectively in a Coast Guard role. I realize Coast Guard men & women will say, “Why would I want an LCS when I can have a NSC Cutter, which is much closer to a real frigate, ??” and I get that. However, in the interest of several combinations of things- both using & saving taxpayer money most effectively & efficiently , getting the most bang for buck but also the “mostest missions in the mostest places” and also the most effective use of resources for missions, I think the LCS could be a very good platform for the Coast Guard to conduct certain missions. Now, I think it would take a little bit of bamboozling the books, but if you said maybe like, “we’ll transfer 2 LCS to the USCG & take the funding to buy another FFG(X)”, something like that, it might work out… the USCG might actually be able to use the , ahem, unique capabilities and equipment/build of both types of LCS much more effectively than the Navy because the Navy needs are , ahem, different. Just a thought. I think the LCS would be viewed in a much different light if it was a CG / Maritime Border-type ship , protecting our waters, hunting down pirates and smugglers, and showing the flag closer to home rather than trying to scare the Russians and Chinese in the Atlantic & Pacific theatres.

      • Luke Shaver

        Coast Guard already said they won’t buy any, they don’t meet their requirements.

        • Secundius

          Not exactly true! USCG tried to buy 12 back in 2014, to be stationed in Mayport, Florida as Fast Drug Interdiction Cutters. But were Turn Down by the US Congress, but the US Navy decided to place or “will place” ~12 LCS’s there anyway or the Same Purpose…

          • Luke Shaver

            Can I have a source for that? They lack the range, endurance, and various other things the USCG wants, plus in the Independence class has a aluminum hull, which the USCG seems to prefer steel hulls on it’s larger cutters.

          • Secundius

            Try reading some past postings…

          • Luke Shaver

            Did some searching from Jan 1 2014 until now, and found nothing about the Coast Guard attempting to buy any LCS’s. Again, a CG Chief once described the LCS as an sports car, mainly focused for certain purposes, and want the Coast Guard wants is more like a utility vehicle, something more multi-purpose, not a sports car.

          • Secundius

            “Freedom” alone made at least 3 Drug Busts of the Columbia Coast during Sea Trials. In both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans…

          • Luke Shaver

            I have no doubts about that, but that doesn’t mean they meet the Coast Guards wants and requirements. They could perform counter narcotic ops, but it doesn’t appear the USCG has much interest in the LCS, I think they are happy with the NSC.

          • Secundius

            Maybe NOT? Currently the “NSC’s” are having a Bit of a Communications problems with there Communications System…

          • Luke Shaver

            Yep, the NSC was never problem free, but the LCS has had more of it’s own problems.

          • Secundius

            Between 2014 to 2016, ~10 Flaws were Found on the NSC! One cost ~$88.5-Million USD for a New C3 system and another cost ~$38-Million USD for Structural Upgrades to the Hull for Arctic Operations…

          • Luke Shaver

            Yep, and there are lists of LCS problems. Both have their share of problems, but one has less problems than the other.

          • Secundius

            Probably one reason that Huntington-Ingalls was Fined in May 2017. For Overcharging the US Government ~$250-Million USD for work never performed. If “HII” had done the work, they might not have been Successfully Sued…

    • kaigun2

      Why do you hate the USCG?

    • D. Jones

      Create a “congressional transport service” and require every member to use the LCS for transportation instead of planes, trains or automobiles. Land-locked states without navigable waterways can have their reps ferried by F-35’s, as soon as they are fixed on Lockmart’s dime.

      Every LCS program manager should be reassigned to the East St. Louis recruitment office.

  • PolicyWonk

    “Previously, the Program Executive Office for Unmanned and Small Combatants (formerly PEO LCS)…”
    ==============================================
    I see the USN took a page out of the “Unethical/Incompetent Company Who Got Caught Marketing Handbook” and has changed the name of the utter failure that is the PEO LCS.

    We can all have confidence that this solution will magically turn the denizens of the PEO USC into the competent planners and administrators the former LCS PEO never had, and the US taxpayers have been shafted into paying the wasted tax dollars to support!

    The LCPQ (“littoral combat pier queen”) fleet will continue to demonstrate their ultimate design intent and return on investment by accomplishing nothing!

    Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

    • sid

      Of course its the same gent who has been hawking the LCS since 2003.
      We shall be hearing more of the same from the USN, sad to say.

  • Ser Arthur Dayne

    I mean I can’t prove it, but I am nearly certain. I blocked him a long time ago, as I just don’t see the point in any exchange with him. And to me, he ruins the fun of reading about a subject/set of subject matter I have a great deal of interest in and exchange comments with my esteemed colleagues here, (most of ) whom are fair and fun to talk to, even when we don’t always agree or even spiritedly disagree. But I see no point in even reading what that guy spews so I just blocked him a long time ago. However, there was a time , some time ago, when he was engaged in an argument with me in comments, and then accidentally responded with the wrong name, and it was clearly the same person. Again, I can’t prove it, but I don’t think it’s hard to see.

    • Duane

      I think this Ser guy is referring to me, and no, I am not Lazarus and I have never used another name in this forum.

      • Techdude

        I AM the I AM, I am Fleet Admiral Dueenee, all who don’t listen and agree with me shall perish

  • Lazarus

    As usual, the vast majority of LCS critics are retired guys with a 1980’s-era view of everything. Back then, the FFG 7 was a source of derisive comments on the written page with World War 2-era guys criticizing the single 76mm gun, the “Helen Keller” sonar, the aluminum superstructure, etc. Some things don’t change.

    • sid

      Where are the LCS’s deploying to this year Laz?

      Oh….Thats right.

      Nowhere!

      • Lazarus

        You can thank Congress for demanding those stupid shock trials. They messed up the deployment sked for LCS.

    • the_artist_formerly_known_as_m

      Laz. How much time elapsed from FFG-7 commissioning until its first deployment?

      • Lazarus

        That is only one MOE and not necessarily applicable for a non battle group deployed.

        • the_artist_formerly_known_as_m

          You didn’t answer my question. I’ll take a different tack. How long elapsed from FFG-7 commissioning until the OHP class was fully operationally capable?

          As an aside: you keep citing metrics that (you think) aren’t metrics for LCS… but which have been metrics for every other ship built in the last 75 yrs!

          Your view seems to be whatever (and whenever) actually LCS delivers is the requirement. That’s a very bad way to look at an acquistion program.

          • RunningBear

            Today, 15Apr18, it would take you 10yrs. to get a FFG-7 (new build) commissioned! Thank your local congressman for that!

            On that note, I’ll bet a “cold one” to anyone that the new FFG will be exactly the same, not one day sooner!

            🙂

          • the_artist_formerly_known_as_m

            Actually – my question was the time elapsed from 1st commissioning to fully operationally capable.

            It’s been almost a decade since LCS-1 was commissioned (8 Nov 2008).

            It’s still unclear when or if LCS will be capable of it’s primary missions areas (SUW, MCM, ASW).

          • Secundius

            Funding for Both Freedom and Independence was in 2004, and the First Keel Laid for USS Freedom in 2 June 2005. Freedom class was an After Thought Class of Ships, promoted by then SecDef Donald Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush. Independence class was to Replace the OHP class of Frigates, but the “Double Dipping” of US Congressional Fingers kept Interfering in the Design and the Cost of the Vessel…

          • Lazarus

            Freedom deployed two years from commissioning. Long lead times are not unheard of in naval acquisition. I suggest you read the acquisition history volumes available on the DoD Historian’s office page.

  • wGraves

    You go to war with what you’ve got. Deploy these ships so that the admirals can figure out how to use them. I’m sure that there’s a role for them. For the moment, it would appear that these craft are going to be a stage on the way to a more capable frigate of correlated design?

  • Bubblehead

    Both the Tics & Perry’s are maxed out. They don’t have any capacity to add any weapons or systems for the future. Their weight, electrical, birthing capacity, AC, etc are ttyl the limits. In fact ditto for the Burkes.

    The Navy made a big mistake opting for more Burkes instead of upgraded Zums for the Enterprise radar. The Burkes have no capacity to grow. They will never be able to take powerful lasers (What they are testing now can barely take down a pint size drone) or railguns. Plus the Burkes are not stealthy. The USN was very short sighted. Their reasoning was Burkes woukd be cheaper, field quicker woukdnt require much engineering change and was less risky. In hindsight all those reasons were incorrect. Out rewired changes to 80% of the hull spaces. In their defense they were unable to predict such an increase in defense spending.

    Dont get me wrong, the Burkes are fine sturdy ships. They are very very lethal. But to survive the future you will need next gen technology. Lasers, railguns & stealth.

  • John MacKechnie

    The Pentagon should issue a stop build order on the entire LCS line. Then transfer all LCS ships to the US Coast Guard or sold to Israel and let them fix it. After removal of classified stuff of course. Which isn’t much. Then all monies for the LCS should go to the Burke III’s.
    I really think this entire ship line will make history as the M4 Sherman of WW2. Except it is kind of hard to fix a ship when it is on the bottom.
    Virtually every modern day Naval Corvette will take the LCS out of action. The LCS may not even see the attacker. It even looks like that some foreign Corvettes would win a 3 to 1 ratio against three LCS ships versus one Corvette.
    Go and make your own comparison.

    • Secundius

      US Navy doesn’t have the Authority to Stop a US House Appropriations Budget Bill. Only the US House can Stop Funding of the Class. And considering that there only 237 Republicans (280 vote or Greater required) in the House and Both Lockheed-Martin Marinette Shipyard in Wisconsin and Austral-USA in Alabama are in Republican Voting Districts. The ODDS of that happen are between Nil and None…

      • John MacKechnie

        yep and your correct.

    • SvD

      Israel buys German. They rejected the Freedom Frigate thing.
      Every submarine in Israel service is also German.
      A nice rebate ensures this and on top comes a reciprocal defense business deal.

      Their older corvettes were built by Northrop Grumman subcontracted to Ingalls Shipbuilding after their own design.

      They have no need for a fleet of alloy trashcans.
      It would be cheaper to more Sa’ar 6-class corvettes from Germany.

      • Secundius

        The “Freedom” or (Fredom in Hebrew) was ordered by the Israeli Navy in 2000 as a Light Destroyer to Israeli specifications at the time. Sale “Fell Though” because of Squabbling dispute over Cost of Ships per Hull. US Government was offering at ~$450-Million per Hull and Israel demanded at ~$300-Million per Hull. SecDef Donald Rumsfeld cancelled the Israeli deal in 2001…

  • Western

    Not sure why these vessels are not white with a red stripe…unless the Coast Guard rejected them.

  • the_artist_formerly_known_as_m

    We’ve been hearing LCS will deploy to the Gulf “next year” for about five years now. Kudos to USNI and Megan Eckstein for shedding light on this debacle.

    Sidebar: but the tail-to-tooth ratio on the LCS is simply unbelievable. Four ships kept at home just to catch up on backlogged testing and training.

  • Angie Nathan

    People Should Ask, Prior Sending Assets for “Post Shakedown Availabilities (PSA)”, will they be Prosecuting Shipyards Accordingly or will Present Shady Activities Persist Sans Accountability?

  • RunningBear

    Congrats on the article, clear, concise and complete. It will be of most interest to see which weapons modules are assigned to which types of hulls. The surface warfare and mine clearing seem to lean toward the LM Freedom and the ASW to the Austal Independence, IMHO. The MH-60R crews seem to enjoy the big deck of the Austal when working helo-ASW in heavier seas, in lieu of DDGs. Also of interest will be the deck missile module retrofits and hopefully, one day, a VLS retrofit for both. The interface of the MQ-8C Fire Scout with the big AESA and 15kft. flight levels should integrate well into the ships SA and perhaps even the NIFC-CA when networked into the Aegis DDG/CG. That Fire Scout 12hr. endurance and the 600nm. range should greatly enhance the weapons capabilities of both types regardless of mission modules. Once weaponized, the LCS should begin to make great contributions to the Littoral Combat duties, for which it was designed, rather than the bluewater FFG escort duty for the carrier strike groups that some of the dim-witted here, can’t seem to grasp. Yes, the LCS is not a substitue for a CVN, CG, DDG, FFG, SSN, Amphib or T-AO; only as shallow water (Littorals) combatants with our allied commands across the “bonny blue seas”, again IMHO.
    🙂

  • Secundius

    Who made the claim that they couldn’t find ANY Accomplishment the “Freedom” made while being in service? i.e. “YOU”! I found 4 in less than 20-minutes of searching. You didn’t even TRY Searching, to make the claim “Missions NOT Accomplished”…

    • Mk-Ultra

      Who made the claim that they couldn’t find ANY Accomplishment the “Freedom” made while being in service? i.e. “YOU”!

      so again, for the second time over this, YOU! quote where exactly I made that claim. i’ll make it easier and repost the comment so you can copy’paste where you think the claim was made.

      not contributing anything at all? A google search has given me a list of deployments the USS Freedom has seen in the decade its been in service

      strange how a ship that doesnt contribute anything at all is deployed. how does that work?

      now copy/paste where the claim was made, can YOU do that? the comment is right there. no more whining or deflecting. also quote where I used wikipedia. Read Harder…..

    • Mk-Ultra

      looks like someone finally realized how much of a fool they made themselves look like

  • Curtis Conway

    The USS Ticonderoga (CG-47) the First Aegis Cruiser, commissioned and deployed in 9 months. All of our cruisers followed in kind. Even the Destroyers do their best to maintain this record.

  • Tirronan

    When do we just admit this ship class is a disaster and scrap the lot?