The original Navy program, Deepwater, specified that Littoral Combat Ships should cost about $200 million a pop. We spent almost $1.3 billion dollars for the first two ships of this new class, so Congress ordered another 52.
Both types of LCS are 'armed' with a 57mm popgun on the front which is more or less useless in a naval engagement.
Evidently the Hagel is aware of the problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship
Operational issues
A 2012 report by Rear Admiral Samuel Perez, USN, found that the ships lacked the manpower and firepower to complete the missions required by the regional combatant commanders. The report found that the Littoral Combat Ship is “ill-suited for combat operations against anything but” small, fast boats not armed with anti-ship missiles. It also found that the excessive beam of the trimaran Independence class ships may pose a "navigational challenge in narrow waterways and tight harbors".[105] The report also found that the contractor-based maintenance scheme for the ships has performed poorly, with the poorly supervised and unaccountable contractors leaving problems for the crews. In addition these contract workers must by law be Americans, which will then need to be flown out to the foreign ports the LCS must return to for supplies and maintenance.[106] A special panel was appointed to investigate "challenges identified" by the report.[107]
In 2013, Captain Kenneth Coleman, the U.S. Navy's requirements officer for the program, identified tactical aircraft, such as strike fighters and maritime patrol aircraft equipped with standoff anti-ship missiles, as a system the LCS would be especially vulnerable to.[108] Vice Admiral Thomas H. Copeman III is reported to be considering an upsized "Super" LCS,[109] that would have space to install needed firepower, because he noted that the 57mm main gun was more suitable to a patrol boat than a frigate.[110][111] Austal’s vice president for sales, Craig Hooper, suggested that the ships should instead be used for UAV operations.[112] Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has called the lack of suitable missions for the LCS "one of its greatest strengths".[113]
The various modules all use the same Internet Protocol formats, and the ships are reportedly prone to Cyber-Attacks.[114][115]
At a hearing on 25 July 2013, the House Armed Services Committee's seapower subcommittee argued with Vice Admiral Richard Hunt on how the LCS would be employed if tensions with North Korea or China led to a confrontation in the Western Pacific. Hunt said the ships are designed in accordance with the Navy's survivability standards, and that the LCS would be used during the initial phase in the theatre and sense the environment before hostilities occur. Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter countered saying the LCS was not survivable enough for long-range threats that China possesses. LCS class ships are built to the Navy's survivability category Level I+, higher than Level I patrol craft and mine warfare ships, but lower than the Level II Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate they are replacing. The Navy has said the LCS was designed to pull out of combat upon sustaining damage.[116]
The deployment of USS Freedom is seen by the Navy as an opportunity to test the ship and its operational concepts real-world environments. Congressman Hunter replied that all that the Freedom had done so far was dock in harbors that other ships couldn't (demonstrating its shallow draft) and do "donuts" (move in fast circles in the water). Admiral Hunt told Hunter that the Navy was about to conclude a war game at the Naval War College to examine ways of exploiting LCS capabilities in a Western Pacific scenario, among others. Hunt added that the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission package would play an important role in protecting aircraft carriers and amphibious ships. The mine countermeasures (MCMs) mission package would also provide necessary port security and waterway patrol capability in a region following major combat operations. The MCM mission package is expected to reach initial operational capability (IOC) in 2014, and the ASW mission package is expected to reach IOC in 2016.[116]
A Government Accountability Office report in April 2014 found that several U.S. 7th Fleet officials thought the LCS was more useful in the Persian Gulf, but not suitable in the Pacific theater. The report found that the ships lack the speed, range, and electronic warfare capabilities to operate in the sheer geographic expanse of the Pacific. The first two vessels from each maker were found to be overweight and not meeting performance requirements for endurance or sprinting over 40 knots. Navy leaders contend that the LCS' shallow draft is well suited for Pacific operations because of the many shallow-water ports in parts of Asia that are difficult for larger destroyers and cruisers to access. The GAO report recommended the Navy consider buying fewer ships of the type if its limitations prevent effective use in the Pacific operations theater.[117][118]
New ship search
On 24 February 2014, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel directed the Navy to submit alternative proposals for a new surface combatant comparable to a frigate that can operate in all regions under any conflict conditions. In response to Pentagon direction to halt buys of the LCS at 32 ships, the Navy is re-examining the role of the vessels and working on alternate proposals for review. The Navy requires the class' roles of counter-mine, anti-submarine, and surface warfare provided by modules, but engineers and shipbuilders are conducting research and creating design proposals that may better fulfill those needs than the LCS. Proposals may include a modified LCS or an entirely new platform and are due in early 2015. There will be an examination of whether the LCS has enough protection and firepower to operate and survive against advanced adversaries. Supporters of the LCS in the Navy point out that the ships were never designed to function like destroyers or similar warships but to perform littoral tasks like high-speed patrols and counter-piracy missions. The ships can move at 40 knots and their ability to operate in shallow water lets them go into areas where other ships cannot.[119]
Secretary Hagel's underlying concern with the plan to buy 52 Littoral Combat Ships was that they would make up one-sixth of the Navy's 300-ship force. Given fiscal constraints and the ships' inability to operate in the face of emerging threats, LCS buys were capped at 32 and the Navy was directed to submit proposals of more capable and lethal small surface combatants. The 2013 Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) report on the two LCS ships questioned their survivability because their design requirements did not include features to conduct sustained combat operations in major conflict zones as the Navy’s other surface combatants had. A new ship class would need built-in anti-submarine and surface warfare mission features, unlike current LCS ships with mission modules that must be swapped out depending on the mission; a counter-mine capability for the ship is currently unknown. The search for a new LCS design runs along with early work to start construction on replacements for the Navy's cruisers and destroyers beginning in 2028.[120]
Several domestic and international frigate designs have been identified as potential LCS contenders. Lockheed Martin has a variant of its Freedom-class LCS that it has been pitching for international customers. There are three versions of the Multi-Mission Combatant ranging from a 1,650-ton corvette to a 3,500-ton frigate. The largest can accommodate a vertical launch system (VLS) and AN/SPY-1F radar, while the smaller would field a CEAFAR active phased array air search radar. Because they are based on the Freedom-class they would retain some measure of modularity. General Dynamics had previously touted a version of their Independence-class LCS with Aegis radar and air search capability. Huntington Ingalls Industries has been pitching a gray hull variant of the Legend-class National Security Cutter dubbed Patrol Frigate 4921. The proposed ship would weigh 5,070 tons and have a combined diesel and gas turbine propulsion system for a top speed of 28 knots, an 8,000 nmi (9,200 mi; 15,000 km) range, and a 60-day endurance. It would include a 12-cell vertical launch system with an active phased array air search radar, X-band and S-band surface search radars, and torpedo tubes with hull mounted and towed array sonars for ASW operations. The Spanish Álvaro de Bazán class frigate (F-100) weighs 4,555 tons and has 48 VLS cells for 32 SM 2 Block IIIA/B air defense missiles and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles paired with an AN/SPY-1D air search radar. It can conduct ASW with a hull mounted sonar and a towed array.[120]
Marine Corps Systems Command executive director John Burrow will lead the search for the new design, which will compare the existing LCS designs against the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates.[121]
On 27 March 2014, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert and Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus defended the LCS' survivability in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They defended the need for 52 small surface combatants and elaborated on the elements of ship survivability. There are three elements of survivability: susceptibility, the ability for a ship to defend itself; vulnerability, the effects of an initial casualty on a ship; and recoverability, the ability for a ship to conduct damage control. Greenert explained that the LCS meets or exceeds survivability and recoverability standards, was as survivable as a frigate, and was more survivable than mine countermeasures and patrol craft; susceptibility has to be improved upon. Although the Admiral was supportive of the LCS' speed, volume, and capacity and reiterated the need for 52 ships, he was open to modifications to increase survivability and flexibility.[122]
Italian defense company Finmeccanica is proposing their OTO Melara 76 mm gun be added to the improved LCS to replace its current 57 mm cannon. The gun is used on current Navy frigate, so it would upgrade its firepower to meet requirements that the new or upgraded LCS be modeled after a frigate. The OTO Melara 76 mm has a range of 22 nmi (25 mi; 41 km), compared to the 57 mm gun's range of 8–10 nmi (9.2–11.5 mi; 15–19 km). It also has a water cooling system to enable the cannon to fire during sustained engagements and uses proximity fused ammunition.[
= new reply since forum marked as read
