Marine General Says LCS Needs Tweaks

Emelie Rutherford at Defense Daily reports (subscription only) on efforts by the Marine Corps evaluation of the Littoral Combat Ship. I particularly like the part in bold below.

A Marine Corps official said yesterday the requirements for the Navy's nascent Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) may need to be tweaked if it is used as "a more all-around ship" for use by his service and special operators.

Brig. Gen. Timothy Hanifen, deputy commanding general of Marine Corps Combat Development Command, told a National Defense Industrial Association gathering of industry and military officials that the LCS does not have all the features the Marine Corps would want in such a near-shore ship.

"We're joined at the hip with N86 [the Navy's surface warfare division] looking at LCS," Hanifen said at an expeditionary-warfare wargame in Quantico, Va. "But I have to tell you, the Navy purchased the LCS, Littoral Combat Ship, with three missions in mind--[anti-submarine warfare] ASW, anti-surface warfare, and maritime-intercept operations--not as a littoral-combat ship in the way that we describe littoral combat as Marines."

I don't think the General got the memo, or maybe he is simply a Marine and has a low tolerance for bullshit. The "Littoral Combat Ship" is the worst named warship type in US Navy history. The name itself is an oxymoron to the capabilities and purpose of the ship. It doesn't describe what the ship is at all, and who the hell ever heard of an L-- surface combatant anyway? Back when hull classification symbols meant something to Navy leaders, they were called APD. Personally, I think it should be something like DL or FF or DE or even APA if we needed the symbol to sound macho, but that type of thinking might match ship function to symbol description...

There are aspects of the LCS I really like, but this program as described is a disaster. It does not meet expectations because nothing about the platform is explained in a way that is remotely realistic. Where is the SWO in leadership today ready to bring common sense back to the SWO community? This ship trades payload for speed, so the US Navy is left with a 3000 ton ship designed intentionally to leverage high speed to overcome every other shortcoming. Square peg meet round hole, and obviously the Marines were not fooled.

Yep, the LCS looks cool, and actually the LCS is a clever concept worth developing in limited numbers. Unfortunately, the requirement to make the LCS a 3000 ton speedboat chaser pretty much killed the ship before it got to the fleet. After all, the Marines aren't going to be landing MV-22s on a LCS without reinforcing the flight deck, and that type of activity is sure to interfere with the stupid speed requirement.

The Navy needs to decide what the LCS is. Is it a 3000 ton speedboat chaser? Is it an unmanned platform mothership? Is it a naval truck for all missions? Is it a combat ship? Is it a 'plug and play' ship? There are questions what this ship is supposed to be, but ultimately it is a round hole and everyone with a square peg is having trouble finding how it fits.

One final thought though... noting the article is discussing quotes from a wargame, I was recently invited and participated in a professional wargame where the LCS was thrown into the mix. There is a serious need for a small, inexpensive warship that can support helicopters and unmanned aircraft, and the LCS can do that very well. It seems to me that if someone would look at the LCS from the perspective of meeting an aviation requirement, a RHIB requirement, a C4ISR requirement (w/ CEC btw), and an endurance requirement for sustaining continual operations the Navy would be a hell of a lot better off than showcasing 45 knot, 20' rooster tails on the high seas and calling that capability.