Correct the Mistake of Seapower 21

Is there a group think idea in the blogosphere? I think so, I've seen it in other places too, so it isn't unique to the blogosphere, but what bothers me is that the idea doesn't really make a lot of sense when given serious consideration... at least for me.

It is often suggested the Littoral Combat Ship is a ship in search of a purpose. I think that statement is false, the Littoral Combat Ship is an imperfect mothership design for delivering unmanned vehicles to forward theaters to support MIW, ASW, and ASuW. Regardless of anything else that has been said about the Littoral Combat Ship, that mission requirement exists, and the necessity to provide unmanned platforms supporting MIW and ASW littoral challenges is very important to the future Navy. The LCS can do that job.

That is why I don't believe the LCS is in search of a purpose. I think people have adopted that position, but I see it like this. The Navy has mission profiles in search of a ship to meet the requirements in the field, and the Navy is assigning the Littoral Combat Ship to address those requirements even though the LCS is a bad fit. That is a different problem than suggesting the LCS is in search of a purpose.

I continue to wonder if the Navy has any intention of doing a final cleanup of Seapower 21 now that they have begun the process of truncating the DDG-1000. While Seapower 21 has been criticized as a failure of strategic thinking, in hindsight I think they got the strategy aspect more accurate than has been given credit, and ultimately failed to get the details right. Seapower 21 said we need an arsenal ship, which we got with the SSGN. Seapower 21 said we needed a cruiser replacement, which will be CG(X). Seapower 21 said we needed a new surface combatant to address 21st century challenges. Seapower 21 said we needed motherships for delivering unmanned systems to forward theaters.

Had Seapower 21 said big motherships and small surface combatants, instead of the big DDG-1000 surface combatant design and the small LCS mothership design, I think most people would agree the Navy would be in good shape even if we were seeing cost overruns on the small combatants.

I still believe that is the way ahead. The Navy should build 26 Littoral Combat Ships to replace the minesweepers, spending money on MIW is a good thing in the emerging 21st century maritime environment. After that, I think the Navy needs to refocus its unmanned systems strategy by building bigger ships to accommodate the likely increase in weight and size we will see in future unmanned systems. I also do not see how the aluminum LCS, with a bridge surrounded by glass, unable to support larger weapon systems, and too expensive to field in reasonable numbers can be a serious solution for the littoral warfare challenges sure to be faced over the next 3 decades. Assigning that requirement to the LCS is not the answer, building a combatant for the 21st century, a true armed and survivable combatant that can sustain presence off foreign shores, is the way ahead for matching the force structure of tomorrow to the maritime strategy for the 21st century as outlined by the Navy today.