The LCS-1 Rumor the Navy Doesn't Need

Back on September 23rd, 2006 everything was going good for the Littoral Combat Ship. On that day the Navy christened the LCS-1 Freedom and she was launched from Marinette Marine shipyard. Here we are nearly 19 months later she still hasn't pulled off the pier. In testimony to the US Senate last week, Admiral McCullough told the committee builders trials would begin next month.

However, according to Tim Colton, maybe not.

MORE DELAY ON LCS 1. There's a mass gathering of incompetent people in Marinette WI this week, trying to work out what to do about LCS 1, which was launched in September 2006 but which will now probably not be delivered before the spring of 2009, if then and if ever. Endless test failures, mostly involving this simple ship's ludicrously complicated engineering plant. Where will it all end? Is it time to recognize that this design just doesn't work, and terminate the program? Then, let's fire everyone in PMS 501 and sue Lockheed Martin, the world's most incompetent shipbuilding contractor. There was a reason that the old Lockheed got out of shipbuilding - they were no good at it - but apparently nobody now remembers that. April 15, 2024.

I got a list of reasons in my email the other day why the biggest lobby for the Littoral Combat Ship is Lockheed Martin. #2 was less cruel than #1, and probably more accurate.

#2 The Littoral Combat Ship is the only surface combatant simple enough for Lockheed Martin to compete.

I honestly wouldn't know, but the rest of the industry appears to have a near universal lack of respect for their shipbuilding talents. It could be rivalry though. It is fair to point out that given they were out of shipbuilding so long, I think one reason they back the LCS project so hard is because I don't think they could build a real warship, and by that I mean the kind that has Level I survivability standards. The LCS is built to the survivability standard of a patrol craft or coastal minesweeper, below that of an amphibious ship, much less an actual warship. If the LCS program fails disastrously, will Lockheed Martin bid the next small surface combatant?

Tim has a habit of being a few days ahead of the media on what is happening in the shipyards. He also has a habit of being blunt, which we like very much. When I read this, all I can think of is how much more money it is going to cost, and how much harder it is going to be for the Navy to get 2 more Littoral Combat Ships in FY09. The Navy will need those 2 LCS if the Navy purchase plan for the LCS program is to go forward. Last month we broke down the costs of both LCS ships, and LCS-1 was last calculated at $631 million. For comparison purposes, LCS-2 is now up to $677 million. If LCS-1 can't even pass enough tests to conduct builders trials, that $47 million gap is going to shrink pretty fast.

Gene Taylor said 10 ships for Fy09. I believed him, and still do. I'm guessing but I think he counted 2 LCS in his count to 10. The presidents budget only calls for 7 ships, 1 DDG-1000, 1 SSN, 2 LCS, 1 JHSV, and 2 T-AKEs. I think Gene Taylor was thinking about adding 2 T-AKEs and 1 LPD-17. He probably still will, but the question is, if the 2 LCS don't get funded, and considering the continuing problems it probably shouldn't, where can the Navy find 2 more hulls?

Very hard, because there are no options. Because the cost of first in class ships is so damn high, Congress needs to bite the bullet and fund some more smaller first in class ships to give them options (or a Plan B since Plan A is going to hell), after all, there are designs to look at. Naming a quick three you have the Gibbs and Cox AAW frigate, the General Dynamics LCS MMC, and the Lockheed Martin MMC. Would they be expensive? Yep. All I am saying is since Congress is constantly talking about cutting the DDG-1000 in FY09, and the LCS has the reputation before its first trial as a bust, if you don't start talking about Plan B Congress will go with a Plan B of their own, and it will be DDG-51s and LPD-17s, both of which are very large ships. Is it a bad idea to suggest Plan B should include something less than 10,000 tons?

Congress should ask Admiral McCullough about the $460 million price cap for the LCS every month this year. Both first in class ships are now approaching 150% of the cost cap, so the question whether the cost cap figure of $460 million is still valid with costs still going up is relevant.