"Lockheed Martin's Littoral Combat Ship Is Finally..." Topic

… Making Headway -- but Is It Too Late?

"The littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1) transits alongside the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) in preparation for a replenishment-at-sea training exercise. Photo credit: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Ignacio D. Perez/Released.

The Littoral Combat Ship, built by Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) and Austal USA, has been plagued with cost overruns, design flaws, and a number of failures. In fact, the LCS performed so poorly that then-Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel cut the Navy's LCS acquisition from 52 to 32 ships, and directed the Navy to appoint a Small Surface Combatant Task Force, or SSCTF, to "submit alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, consistent with the capabilities of a frigate."

The good news is Lockheed Martin addressed many of the issues plaguing the LCS, and now production is surging as the price has dropped. The bad news is the Navy has decided it wants a modified LCS -- which it's officially calling a frigate -- for ships 33-52. So, what does this mean for Lockheed Martin?…"

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Too small, limits capacity, capability. With the cracks, stresses now… what happens during extended deployments and the ships need to be self-sustained by their crews to perform their roles or assignments? Does the LCS offer advantages? Probably lower cost, but so does not having enough ships or any ships. That saves a lot in the short run but may cost significantly more in the long run.

A very poor, overly expensive design, but not surprising given its manufacturer (at least on the pricing front).

Say what you will but the Lockheed version of the LCS is a very attractive ship. I will now run and hide from all those loathing the "Little Crappy Ship".

It's a lovely "yacht".

Mako11……Actually I started to say what a great "yacht" it would make. There is some billionaire who has an enormous yacht that looks like the LCS.

And yet the Independence-class LCS hulls are far more versatile. Larger helo deck and hangar, roll-on/roll-off capability, and more fuel-efficient.

Still horribly under-armed, mind you, but that is fixable with sufficient funds. Needs at least a 76mm gun, and a 5" would be even better. Also needs a real SAM capability.

what happened to the modular design ship program? is it dead.

"Still horribly under-armed, mind you, but that is fixable with sufficient funds."

Except that all of that needs to go somewhere and there's no spare volume. You also have to worry (a lot) about the additional topside weight reducing stability and causing you to capsize in storms … or "merely" render your weapons and radars ineffective because your roll is too violent.

"what happened to the modular design ship program?"

They're still modular--sort of. Turns out that changing modules is so time consuming and difficult that they're going to permanently assign roles to ships. It's still possible to switch roles in the case of breakdowns or damage, if it's essential, if a spare module is available, and if there are facilities available.

Shoot, I know that there's a problem with module compatibility across the two hulls, but I can't remember which way it goes.

The modular design was the much promoted feature for these, but sadly, they haven't been developed as quickly, or worked anywhere near as well as advertised.

IIRC, some of the modules have even been cancelled.

I think the anti-sub warfare module was nixed (IIRC), which was to be included for these new "frigates" (in name only), since we need new ASW vessels due to the retirement of the OH Perry class.