Discussing Alternatives to the Current LCS Designs

DefenseNews has an article on the fallout of the decisions made over the last several days regarding the Littoral Combat Ship program. For most of the article, it repeats what has been said elsewhere, then it takes an interesting turn at the end with a few interesting comments.

Ironically, one shipbuilder who may benefit from a potential collapse of the LCS program is Northrop Grumman. Northrop lost in the 2004 first round of the LCS design competition, having offered a composite-hull design based on the 650-ton Swedish Visby corvette.

But in January 2006, the company’s Electronic Systems sector in Bethpage, N.Y., won a 10-year contract to be the prime integrator for the LCS mission packages.

Its Ship Systems shipbuilding sector, headquartered at Pascagoula, Miss., has developed a naval frigate version of the U.S. Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter (NSC).

Sources said Northrop might be preparing a proposal, but a company official would not confirm such a plan.

I'm 100% behind the idea to reintroduce the 650-ton Swedish Visby corvette design. Building it as a prototype with R&D funding like LCS-1 and LCS-2 would seem like an excellent hedge bet as problems continue with the LCS program. Plan B is helpful only if it exists, and considering LCS-1 and LCS-2 are the only Navy ships being built that are less than 14,500 tons, building a Visby class seems like a prudent hedge bet for just in case even if it never goes beyond a single hull.

I discuss Bob Work a lot on this blog. His contributions at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Studies continue to be the most detailed and interesting alternatives to current Navy plans. While I don't always agree with him, I respect and enjoy his thoughtful and historical approach to various issues.

With that said, I usually take notice when he weighs in on naval issues, and while he has come out with harsh criticism to the new Maritime Strategy, which we have in common, we both have moved on to turn our attention to what that strategy outlines. In the article, he adds these comments.

“I wouldn’t have suggested this until I read the Navy’s new strategy,” said Bob Work, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment in Washington. “But if you really believe maritime security is a big thing, a ship with a 12,000-nautical-mile range looks pretty good for the persistent patrols that the strategy suggests.”

The NSC might be the answer to the Navy’s needs, Work said.

This could have been said by any of a million interested observers, and uhm, has been. Bob Work is absolutely right and the Navy is in denial to believe otherwise. Sustainment, Presence, and more specifically Logistics is critical to the future strategy. I have no idea what a "National Fleet Frigate" based on the "National Security Cutter" design might look like, but even without the details I am very, very interested.

More designs, new ideas, and perhaps new approaches are necessary if the Navy is to shake the funk it is in. The current belief is that it can simply build its way out of all the current problems. I have no faith in that type of approach to the implementation of the new Maritime Strategy. It is not too early to start discussing alternatives or additional competitors to the current LCS designs in implementation of the new Maritime Strategy, or evaluate new approaches that might be necessary to successfully implement the new Maritime Strategy guidance. There are calls for Roughead to take it slow. I would suggest it is never too early for leaders to demonstrate and exercise leadership or independence during tough times, and the Navy is mired in some tough times.