Navy Down Ten Commands

If the US Navy loses 10 vessels and 10 commands, does anyone in the US Navy really care? If it is the Cyclone class PC boats, in an honest moment - I don't think folks in the Navy think it is a big deal.

The Navy is pulling its entire fleet of coastal patrol ships from service, including the five forward-deployed to the Persian Gulf, to repair hull cracks and other damage associated with long service and hard use, Navy Times has learned.

Inspections turned up “significant structural damage” to the PC fleet, and “all vessels have experienced frame buckling and damage to the hull. Corrosion is also evident,” said an announcement by Chris Johnson, a spokesman for Naval Sea Systems Command.

The ships, which entered service in the early 1990s, are past their service lives, and engineers are worried about their ability to handle the full range of speeds and sea states for which they were originally designed, Johnson said.

Is it a big deal? Yes. It is. The case for saying it is a big deal is not easy to make though, because it begins with ones position on how important one believes PCs are to a blue water power projection Navy. The Navy gives a lot of lip service to the respect they have for the danger that small boats can present in a combat situation, but the truth is the respect is based on potential dangers that largely are not respected as realistic. I honestly believe that part of the reason the US Navy doesn't have a high opinion of the capabilities of small vessels is that the US Navy only operates small vessels in specific situations where the requirement is absolute - like the Cyclones that are forward deployed to the Persian Gulf.

Perhaps I am naive, but I strongly believe there is a role for small combatants in the US Navy. I am not sure the Cyclones are the best example, indeed they might be the worst example, but even as expensive, lightly armed PCs they have played a critical role for the US Navy in Operation Iraqi Freedom. They were also found as necessary when the capability wasn't available and needed. Again, while the PCs may not be the best example, I still strongly believe that if the US Navy put more support behind smaller combatants there would be two notable benefits to the fleet at large - more command experience at sea and more creativity among those with more command at sea. Nothing personal to most SWOs, but I find the folks who have had command of PCs at LCDR are a little more out of the box than those who never held those commands. The experience matters.

A few points. First, I am very skeptical of the idea that the Navy can throw a few million at the Cyclone hull fatigue problem and get the Cyclones back in business. Given the way we have seen the Navy treat the big cruisers and destroyers the last few years, and the cultural disdain for small craft like PCs from big Navy, I have a feeling that once someone takes a closer look we are going to see bigger problems than has been reported. The Coast Guard thought it was a quick patch and plug job for their 110s too. That didn't turn out well, and I have serious doubt this will either.

For a few years we have discussed that the Navy is due a PC replacement program. Well, nothing ever came of it and a life extension for the small craft was chosen as the best course ahead before these new problems popped up. Down 10 hulls, it is fair to highlight that plan didn't work out - and also raises questions if the Navy could rapidly field small vessels in wartime when right now it is unlikely they could rapidly field Cyclone replacements even if the Navy wanted to. That last is one of my main concerns with the Navy in general - the current Navy leadership doesn't really believe in a "PLAN B" when it comes to shipbuilding, so if the US ever needs to build new ships to counter an emerging threat, the cupboard is remarkably bare with very limited options.

What To Do?

First, the Navy should do their patch job on the hulls and sell (or give) the Cyclones to a partner. The Cyclones are very expensive to operate and were never a good fit for the US Navy.

Second, the Navy should buy a replacement sooner rather than later. Don't get me wrong, I love the Baynunah class, Hamina class, Armidale class, and even the Visby class - but I'm not convinced that is the right direction. As much as it pains me to say this, the US Navy doesn't really need a PC and doesn't really need a corvette either - what they really could use are more JHSVs.

I've been giving a lot of thought to something reported back in February of this year - an interview by Chris Cavas of Bob Work discussing Cyclone replacements. Recall the quotes:

There was a big debate within the department on patrol craft, PCs. People said these are very good for irregular warfare. But when we looked at it we said we wanted to have self-deployable platforms that have a lot of payload space that you can take to the fight whatever you need - SEALs, Marines, [a] Riverine squadron. So we decided to increase the Joint High Speed Vessel program, at the same time SLEPing [service life extension program] the 13 PCs we have, so they're going to be with us well into the 2020s. But the Joint High Speed Vessels will take over for them, because we like their self-deployability aspects - they can be a sea base, they can be an Africa Partnership Station, they're extremely flexible.

At the time this was said - I hated the idea. Now that I have had some time to think about it, I really like this idea. This wouldn't be the same JHSVs the Navy is currently buying, but they would be similar. These would be armed with stabilized cannons, RAM, and operate UAVs while acting as a RHIB mothership, not to mention carry a bunch of other capabilities inside a high speed vessel with a helo deck. They would be designed to carry larger numbers of people at the expense of the large cargo payloads of the MSC JHSV variants, but instead of the unmanned high speed mothership model the LCS is supposed to be, this would be more of a manned capability. Put your Force Recon on one of those and go hunt pirates.

To me, that type of platform enables a truly dynamic joint sea basing capability for maritime security operations that frigates, Littoral Combat Ships, PCs, and corvettes simply cannot deliver in the 21st century; and enables delivery of the desired capabilities we want in forward operating environments in the 21st century.

So speaking for me - I'd like to this version of the JHSV get bumped up in priority to meet the need of replacing the PCs sooner than later, and see the Navy sell off (or give away) the PCs sooner than later. Indeed, when Lockheed Martin is announced the LCS winner - perhaps the US Navy can hold off an Austal GAO challenge by moving forward on navalized JHSVs sooner.