Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday September 06 2020, @05:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the ship-it! dept.

Lessons for the Navy's New Frigate From the Littoral Combat Ship - War on the Rocks:

Since their inception over a decade ago, the U.S. Navy's littoral combat ships have been plagued by cost overruns, frequent breakdowns, and an ever-changing mission set. As the former navigator of the USS Coronado, the second littoral combat ship of the Independence-class, I experienced firsthand how these ill-conceived vessels impacted sailors. Recently, the U.S. Navy selected a variant of the Italian-made European multi-purpose frigate to revitalize its stock of surface combatants, which, given the ship's design is already in use by NATO navies, is a promising sign. However, as its newest class of warships begins construction and as the Navy continues to formulate its training and crewing structures, it should take stock in the lessons learned from its ongoing struggle with the littoral combat ship.

During my nearly three-year tenure in the program, I heard a range of derisive substitutes for the littoral combat ship acronym, LCS. "Let's Change Something" and "Little Circus Show" were common and among the more polite. Indeed, the program has largely been dismissed by insiders, and even by its own sailors, as a $30 billion failure. As the navigator of the USS Coronado from 2018 to 2020, I spent much of my time struggling with the ship's many shortcomings. On one occasion our vessel's propulsion lost all power in the middle of San Diego Bay and we were saved from grounding in the city's downtown only by an emergency anchorage. The Coronado, along with the other first three littoral combat ships, have proven so disastrous that the Navy announced their early decommissioning next year.

[...] How can the Navy redeem itself with the new guided-missile frigate class, or FFG(X), which seeks to fill the hole of small surface combatants left by the fledgling littoral combat ship? By selecting the Italian-designed FREMM frigate, the Navy has already taken a positive step. Littoral combat ships were originally conceived as part of a radical concept of operations: fast and customizable combatants that could operate in near-shore environments and meet a range of missions from minesweeping to anti-submarine warfare. In short, they were warships designed to face the asymmetrical threats of the 21st century. In the end, however, the customizable modules were deemed impractical and the ships were delivered with few weapons and no capability to detect mines or submarines. Furthermore, the Independence-class littoral combat ships were designed after high-speed ferries and featured aluminum hulls, waterjet propulsion, and empty compartments for a yet-to-be-chosen missile. In order to defend itself on deployment, the Coronado had to be retrofitted with harpoon missile cannisters on its bow. These were dubious choices for warships that were meant to cross the Pacific Ocean and fight independently at sea.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday September 06 2020, @01:03PM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 06 2020, @01:03PM (#1047163) Journal
    Ridiculous procurement failures like this are one of the biggest weaknesses of the US military. The prime contractor was General Dynamics. They also fucked up with the Stryker [wikipedia.org] armored personnel carriers.

    My take on what needs to be done to fix this situation:
    1. Listen to the sailors and soldiers who actually use the equipment. If it sucks, cancel right away rather than drag things out for years.
    2. Don't be afraid to permanently ban businesses from government contracts, if they can't deliver, decade after decade.
    3. Don't use cost-plus contracts ever. Don't change the contract unless it's material and urgent.

    I get that a huge part of the problem is that military procurement is really a political wealth redistribution gimmick. It doesn't have to be that way.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2020, @03:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2020, @03:35PM (#1047182)

    > Listen to the sailors and soldiers who actually use the equipment.

    The fuck would you do that?

    The entrepreneurs and CEOs need to reimagine the space every few years. The Great Man will solve your problems. That's just how it is.

  • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday September 06 2020, @04:16PM (1 child)

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Sunday September 06 2020, @04:16PM (#1047200)

    Don't be afraid to permanently ban businesses from government contracts, if they can't deliver, decade after decade.

    But they do deliver, the annual , uhem, "campaign contributions" are always made right on time. Sometimes even with free bonuses.

    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 07 2020, @12:55AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 07 2020, @12:55AM (#1047356) Journal
      Welcome to Conflict of Interest 101, yay.