Offshore Patrol Cutter Update - LCS Still in Play

I wanted to check out what this was about before posting on it specifically. I know this is over two weeks old, but it is important and I wanted to know more before discussing.

Under pressure to cut the cost of its Littoral Combat Ship program, the U.S. Navy is studying whether to lower the required speed and swap out fuel-hogging propulsion systems, said a former senior Navy analyst and another source informed about the effort.

The study, led by Naval Sea Systems Command, could lay the groundwork for a change in one of the key selling points of the new ships, which can reach speeds of over 45 knots, but whose costs have more than doubled since 2002, said the sources, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the study.

Well, I had an opportunity to ask my favorite Admiral, which would be USCG Rear Adm. Gary T. Blore, for an update on the upcoming Offshore Patrol Cutter program. You see, the Coast Guard is under serious pressure to pick a LCS variant for that program, and RADM Blore adds some context (PDF) to the engine study.

Certainly, LCS is something that we would consider. I meet fairly regularly, as does my staff, with Naval Sea Systems Command. And, you know, I just spoke with Admiral Landay earlier this week over lunch and, you know, we talked about LCS. I think there's a study underway in the Navy, or about to be completed in the Navy, that would put a more fuel-efficient power plant on the same hull.

I think -- in relation to the previous question about international acquisition, I think the study was actually initiated to take a look at potential LCS sales internationally and whether some nations might be more attracted to a less expensive ship that maybe wasn't as fast, but was more fuel efficient. As it turns out, that's certainly something the Coast Guard would be very interested in, too.

So I haven't seen the study yet, but I understand, you know, they have -- you know, basically, they look at combinations of, like, diesel engines instead of the gas turbines, you know, shafts and traditional propellers along with jet drives, depending on which variant.

We'll be very interested in that when it comes out. But, no, we have not made any final decisions as far as the requirements for the offshore patrol cutter.

I think Ray Mabus should have Rear Adm. Gary T. Blore give a class to Navy Admirals in NAVSEA, starting with Landay on how to talk to the American people about acquisition and be loved for it. I love talking to RADM Blore, consider how things are so different between the Navy and Coast Guard.

On my right is the enormously powerful ruler of the worlds high seas, the US Navy, who doesn't talk about how they spend their gigantic acquisition budget and can't articulate how means match ends and ways, and says as little as possible executing strategic communications policy adapted from a transparency handbook written by a former Soviet Union political officer.

While on my left is the small budget Coast Guard whose leadership can't wait to tell anyone who will listen about everything they are doing with as much detail and transparency as possible.

Check out the bloggers roundtable (PDF) by USCG Rear Adm. Gary T. Blore. It is an interesting read, and covers some interesting things the Coast Guard is doing in regards to their own acqusition personnel issues, not to mention Coast Guard LCS mission modules, UAVs, Deepwater, and C4ISR projects the Coasties are discussing or developing.

You know why the current Coast Guard acqusition path sounds smart? Because they stand behind everything they are doing, discuss the challenges while highlighting the advantages of the choices ultimately decided. In the end, the Coast Guard may end up picking the Littoral Combat Ship for the Offshore Patrol Cutter program for very legitimate reasons, and my bet is if that was to happen, USCG Rear Adm. Gary T. Blore would be the first Admiral in any maritime service that makes that platform sound like a really good idea.