Thursday, June 22, 2017

The Sacred Cow

If there’s a sacred cow in the Navy, it’s got to be the LCS.  Come hell or high water, the LCS will continue.  The latest example of the sacred nature of the LCS comes courtesy of reader Delmar Lewis who put me onto this article from Bloomberg.

It appears that the Navy is going to procure a second LCS in FY18 even though it was not originally budgeted.  The Navy “found” the funds by delaying the nuclear refueling of the aircraft carrier Stennis for about a year and shifting funding from the Infrared Search and Track (IRST) program for the F-18 Hornet.

“About $325 million will be freed up because the Navy has delayed the overhaul of an aircraft carrier that involves refueling its two nuclear power cores …  An additional $100 million will be shifted from the Navy’s Infrared Search and Track program for installation on its F/A-18E/F fighters, and the rest from smaller programs.” (1)

I truly am baffled by the gushing stupidity of the Navy when it comes to the LCS.  That they would value the useless, toothless, short-legged LCS over developing an IRST or refueling a nuclear carrier just boggles the mind.



________________________________

(1)Bloomberg website, “Navy Finds $500 Million for a Second Littoral Combat Ship in '18”, Tony Capaccio, 19-Jun-2017,


9 comments:

  1. Well thanks for the mention it is truly amazing to me too that the vaunted and much feared LCS (NOT) is yet getting another ship I just want them to go away for good!!!Total waste of resources

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sounds like one of those budget games where they waste money on useless pet projects, then later come back and ask congress for more funding for needed activities like re-fueling an aircraft carrier.

    MM-13B

    ReplyDelete
  3. The HASC Seapower subcommittee is inserting language at the request of Navy in the 2018 NDAA that would cancel the 2016 NDAA requirement for the CVN-78 Ford shock trials before deployment. Navy claims the Ford could be operational earlier so easing the burden on the overstretched carriers. 

    Now you are reporting Navy delaying the Refueling Complex Overhaul, RCOH, of CVN-74 USS Stennis from FY2018 to FY2019 to fund an additional LCS.

    Pork barrel politics are the Admirals #1 priority even if it makes Navy nothing if not totally inconsistent in what it says are its priorities

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Navy isn't concerned with deploying the Ford sooner. They want to abandon shock trials totally because they reveal just how poorly our ships are designed today. That's why they delayed the LCS shock trials as long as they could.

      Delete
  4. CNO you have covered LCS shock trials before but bears repeating.

    Navy putting out fake news on LCS shock trials and CNN & co believed it claiming 10,000 lb charges used in shock trials on news and their youtube videos.

    Re. Independence class, USS Jackson, DOT&E “approved the reduced severity (at half the required shock strength) trial geometries for LCS-6 because of serious concerns about the potential for damage to non-shock hardened mission critical equipment and ship structure.”

    Re. the Freedom class,USS Milwaukee, DOT&E “The Navy viewed the third LCS 5 trial as not worthwhile because the Navy was concerned shocking the ship at the increased level of that trial would significantly damage substantial amounts of non-hardened equipment, as well as damage, potentially significantly, the limited amount of hardened equipment, thereby necessitating costly and lengthy repairs.”

    https://news.usni.org/2016/12/02/navy-says-lcs-shock-trials-positive-results-pentagon-still-concerns

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can some one please explain the unfunded priorities checklist for me is likely all these (pet) projects that are not needed or wanted get approved this way in other words a second budget wishlist

    ReplyDelete
  6. Totally worthless as a warship, but could be a good candidate to convert to a mine warfare ship.
    1 shallow water operations
    2 high speed
    3 module bays that could be used for minelaying
    4 flight deck/hanger for mine sweeping helos
    5 small crew size

    The Navy could take a bad design and turn in into a offensive mine warfare capability that most navies don't have. I thinking South China Sea, Med, Baltic and other choke points that are shallow water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good thought. The only drawback is that if you're laying mines in contested waters, the LCS would be susceptible to air attack and has only fairly short range self-defense. It could operate in tandem with a Burke to provide the AAW cover.

      The Navy has been trying for years to develop a mine countermeasures module and has not yet succeeded. The only mine sweeping helo in the Navy is the MH-53E Sea Dragon and it is too heavy for the LCS.

      Delete
  7. Ok the navy released its long awaited RFI for the frigate looks eerily similar to LCS all over again I have a bad feeling bout this

    ReplyDelete