Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)


interesting change after Jul 10, 2017
Jul 1, 2017

... details emerging:

"On May 23, the U.S. Navy rolled out its 2018 budget request that included one littoral combat ship, or LCS. The logic was that since Congress had given the Navy three in fiscal year 2017, an additional one would keep both builders — Wisconsin-based Marinette Marine and Alabama-based Austal USA — afloat.

But inside the White House, alarm bells went off in some sectors. Peter Navarro, the head of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade and industrial policy office, was looking at information indicating one ship could trigger layoffs at both shipyards. Those concerns were shared by senior Trump aides Rick Dearborn and Stephen Miller — both old hands of long-time Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions — and together they lobbied and prevailed upon Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to add a second ship to the request."

Life support: The Navy's struggle to define a LCS bare minimum
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

goes on below due to size limit
now the WH doesn't support three more gamechangers again:

“These two additional ships are not needed,” Mulvaney wrote.

inside House appropriators add LCS, JSTARS funding, irking White House
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
interesting change after Jul 10, 2017now the WH doesn't support three more gamechangers again:

“These two additional ships are not needed,” Mulvaney wrote.

inside House appropriators add LCS, JSTARS funding, irking White House
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The definition of pork for sure just hope FFGX turns out to be the same with more built than 20 I think these things have a life of their own
 
[redacted] "Austal is very proud of the LCS programme and we are focused on providing the most cost-effective and capable small surface combatants in the world for the US Navy."
[redacted]
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
now I skimmed over

Has the US Navy thought this new Frigate through? New report raises questions.

17 minutes ago
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
It's obvious to anyone who has followed the US Navy for years...for any time back into the 80s at least, what is needed in a strong frigate.

They have to be multi mission, they have to keep up with the arriers, they have to be able to provide air-coverage for nearby ships and compliment the DDGs and CGs, and they have to have a strong ASW and ASuW capability.

The three vessels they are considering can all do this.

I like the lengthened, up armed Freedom Type FFG(X), but believe either the FREMM or the the Up graded Legend FFG(X)by Bath and Huntington, could do it. My guess is that the Lockheed entry will end up winning...but time will tell.

They also have to have to ensure they uparm and upgrade all of the LCS to have moderately the armament that the new FFG(X)s will have.

Otherwise those hulls will be boondoggles.

But I believe they can be up armed and made adequate to do a lot of things that will free up virtually all of the FFG(X)s to escort CGS and ARGs.
 
LOL! mind-boggling sentence inside
Full speed ahead on the new US Navy frigate
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:
"The Navy knows what it needs precisely because it cannot execute the missions that it would otherwise assign to a frigate."

hey author, with your 'full speed' title, just wait if the USN selects anything at all, as it has to pour billions into its LCSs: revolutionary transformational gamechangers which 'undoubtedly' 'ultimately' 'eventually' 'will' work
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
LOL! mind-boggling sentence inside
Full speed ahead on the new US Navy frigate
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:
"The Navy knows what it needs precisely because it cannot execute the missions that it would otherwise assign to a frigate."

hey author, with your 'full speed' title, just wait if the USN selects anything at all, as it has to pour billions into its LCSs: revolutionary transformational gamechangers which 'undoubtedly' 'ultimately' 'eventually' 'will' work
...and they will get changed and get to the point where they are useful.

Luckily, the us navy built its lcs ships large. At 3,500 tons (or 3,000 tons) they have room to add what they are going to have to add in terms of weapons and sensors to make them work.

if they were only 1,400 tons...or even 1,800 tons and had the problems that thjey have they would not be able to fix them.

But both classes have enough room and power to add the armament and sensors they need...and they will. We will end up with 24 or 28 lcs vessels that turn into sort of frigates that are capable of holding their own against peers.

Then they will add 20 or maybe 24+ actual FFGs that are what the LCS always should have been.
 
Jul 19, 2018
LOL! mind-boggling sentence inside
Full speed ahead on the new US Navy frigate
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:
"The Navy knows what it needs precisely because it cannot execute the missions that it would otherwise assign to a frigate."

hey author, with your 'full speed' title, just wait if the USN selects anything at all, as it has to pour billions into its LCSs: revolutionary transformational gamechangers which 'undoubtedly' 'ultimately' 'eventually' 'will' work
now
Navy Exercises Options For Additional Future Frigate Design Work
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(basically listing several million awards)
 

Top