What to Watch For - LCS

On Wednesday the House Appropriations Committee will do the full defense markup. Obviously everyone's eyes are on the F-22, but based on the reporting people should also keep their eye on the Littoral Combat Ship. This program could not get any stranger.

According to news reporting the last few days at InsideDefense (subscription only), there are two LCS issues specifically worth watching. The first is that John Murtha wants to add authorization for a 4th LCS in FY 2010. The second is that the Navy wants to cut funding for LCS mission modules.

The other day Bryan was discussing the Navy talking point about alternatives to the LCS that those platforms don't "meet the requirement." Will someone tell me how a Littoral Combat Ship without modules will be able to "meet the requirement?" Give me a break, the Navy has a requirement for a very fast, empty 3000 ton 'war'ship built like a logistics ship and armed with a 57mm and RAM launcher? I thought the requirement was the payload, not the hull.

I am sure there is a reason the Navy wants to cut funding for LCS modules, but that reason cannot possibly jive with the same arguments used to challenge LCS critics. It is pretty clear why now, at this very late hour, the Navy would suggest cutting LCS mission module funding. They do it after Gene Taylor (D-MS) has held hearings, because had the Navy suggested cutting LCS mission module funding during those hearings, the Navy would have had difficulty with his questions how the LCS is a better option than other frigate options, including a version of the National Security Cutter being built in Mississippi.

Mission module funding was reduced from the Presidents budget in FY 2007, FY 2008, and FY 2009. I do wonder, is it because the mission modules are less expensive (there is some truth to that) or just poorly managed or not a priority? Very hard to tell, but I do wonder what the final mission modules will look like. At some point Congress should have the Navy explain which is more important, the LCS or the modules. These are different programs with different priorities, and I am curious, is the hull more important than the modules or are the modules more important than the hull.

For me, the modules are much more important, but I don't think that is how the Navy looks at it. There are probably good reasons for the decisions being made to cut the mission modules, but it sure seems odd to me. Without the modules, what is the LCS?

I only have one thought regarding adding a 4th LCS for FY2010 - where does the money come from? Why not spend any new LCS hull money on developing LCS modules other than these 3, for example, where is the LCS mission module for Sea Control. If the LCS is so 'perfect' for fighting pirates, where is the pirate fighting LCS module? That module would, presumably, include a holding facility for example since the ship doesn't really have any spare bunks for sailors, much less prisoners.