Daniel Goure, PHD of the Lexington Institute is becoming one of my favorite defense thinkers. Not only is his thinking truly out of the box (and in opposition to conventional thinking found on the East and West Coast) but its reasonable, thoughtful and extremely practical.
He also has the gift of not reverting to defense/business/academic speak which I find annoying. In addition to all of the above, he gets the internet...make your point because your readers have lives!
No 18000 word, rambling piles of mush from this guy...THANK GOD! This is a slice of his latest...
Both LCS 1 and LCS 2, the USS Independence, will open up new opportunities for naval collaboration between the U.S. and its allies, particularly in the Pacific region. Its modular design will allow the LCS to rapidly switch between the currently planned set of surface warfare, ASW and mine countermeasure missions. Clearly, the inherent flexibility of the LCS design will allow for other combinations of capabilities to be deployed, such as air and missile defense, shore bombardment, humanitarian assistance and air and sea surveillance.I never considered those points. Maybe the Surface Navy knows what its doing after all? Read it all here.
Equally important, both LCS variants offer the potential to equip foreign navies. In the past, U.S. Navy ships have been too expensive and even too capable for all but the richest and most sophisticated foreign navies to procure. LCS will be relatively less expensive and possesses the virtue of an open architecture that will enable foreign navies to customize the ship to meet their needs. There is a tremendous value also to foreign navies operating the same platforms and weapons systems as the U.S. Navy.
All good points BUT there are some problems:
ReplyDelete1.) The build quality issues need to be resolved fast. NG has gone so far as to putting the Louisiana yards up for sale so no idea whats thats going to do as far as cost and availability is concerned.
2.)Blue water deployment and long range patrol capability is still untested for the most part.
3.)There is little chance of foreign navies getting their hands on the LCS as technology transfer and usage issues will get in the way. Plus very few foreign navies operate on the Littoral Combat doctrine, most favor a simple blue water approach so broad appeal will be limited to a few countries such as India, Singapore, South Korea who have some form of Littoral Combat requirement. But its a BIG if, to see whether Congress will allow sales or these countries jump on board.
BTW I have read similar statements about the LCS before but the Pentagon has never shown any enthusiasm towards such views.
I agree that the LCS is a very capable and specialized platform but to try and add value to it in this way is a bit unnecessary, its good enough to stand on its own merit.
Hey Ron.
ReplyDeleteAgree on point 1. Our ship building is a mess.
Disagree on point 2. RimPac is a proving ground. Onward and upward from there. I don't know the method but its obvious that these ships are going to be integrated with the fleet.
Unsure of point 3. Can you imagine any Senator or Congressman refusing to sell US weapons to an ally during this time??? I can't but things change so I'm a firm "I don't know" on this one.
Your last point...it is a capable platform but just like the F-35, there is a campaign of sorts out there to kill it. Favorable articles especially in this age of coming budget cuts might prove helpful to the decision makers.
True on the last point, nothing is sacred anymore. I think the main problem lies in the government appointed overseers in all departments. There is very little connection between what the budget allows and what the long term strategic needs are. For the most part State gets its foot in I think and ruins any plans to form specific defenses against countries like China and Pakistan who are clearly going to be issues in the long term but are currently holding us by the dangly bits in one way or the other. But goddamit we need to do something. If it means arming India and Korea to power project on our behalf so be it. Sadly I don't think such diplomacy is in the Obama playbook...
ReplyDeleteIf the US wannts to get back into the export naval shipping game, it needs to develop a follow-on to the Oliver Perry Class frigate.
ReplyDeleteReasonable all round frigates are what most Countries can afford to buy these days. Designs like the MEKO 100/200 and Spains F-100 series are selling like 'hotcakes' because they are not too expensive to acquire or run and yet offer reasonable to good capabilities across the entire spectrum of naval warfare.
They might lack some capability right at the very top end, but for the majority of users, they van go into harm's way, do the job required and satisfy the budgetary requirements as well.
I don't see LCS managing that, because it was never intended to. USN has no real lack of surface combatant capability, it's using Arleigh Burkes for the same role that other navies use FFG-7's after all, so such a frigate wouldn't do much for the USN, conversely, I don't see LCS doing much for smaller navies.
Smaller navies need a reasonable gun, a reasonable area anti-air warfare capability, a good self-defense capability, a reasonable anti-surface capability, a reasonable anti-submarine capability and the ability to employ a helo or 2 from the same ship as well as these vessels providing a fleet command and control capability all in the one ship.
LCS isn't designed for all that and certainly not equipped in it's current form...
i am still wondering how the LCS can perform the tasks asked of it, i can see it being an adequate ASW platform because it can have a towed sonar and helos, but what anti-surface abilities does it have (no VLS or missiles) and its gun is too short range. also it has very limited AA capabilities, with only SeaRAM. i think the international variant is still far better than what we have been delivered, and way too expensive for the lack of capabilities it provides.
ReplyDeleteThe LCS as currently being tested is just that; a testbed. The eventual winner will adapt its design and I firmly believe that the final production vessel will closely match the International variant, ie with SPY-1F AEGIS and Mk41 VLS systems as a standard, in addition to the swap-able modules.
ReplyDeleteThe LCS-I did raise some international interests, but untill a clear winner is chosen (and fielded in sufficient numbers) and an agreeable price negotiated (including offsets) LCS-I will just be a concept which will have to compete with foreign national designs.
Most countries can't design, build and maintain a Nimitz class carrier, but a corvette sized patrol boat is within reach of most foreign industries.
but the question is will the LCS be as capable as future designs, i dont care if it sells to other nations, will it be able to defend the fleet and project power where necessary and take the pressure of the burkes and ticonderogas.
ReplyDeletei hope you are right about the design changes, i like the idea of the modules and flexibility but i want to also see capable now and i dont want to see someone awarded a contract for 30-50 boats at 600+ million a piece, i would love to see two or so more test boats with AEGIS and VLS until the navy commits to full scale production.