Consider the following quote from the article (underlining and bold emphasis is my addition),
"... the new assessments conclude the ships are not equal to today’s frigates or mine countermeasures ships, and they are too large to operate as patrol boats.Let me repeat and summarize the highlighted sentences: the Navy has concluded that the LCS cannot perform its missions. How much more analysis is needed? The program is a total failure.
The LCS, according to the assessments, is not able to fulfill most of the fleet missions required by the Navy’s primary strategy document, the “Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower,” and included in a 2011 revision of the LCS CONOPS document.
Equipped with a surface warfare or maritime security mission package, the ships were judged capable of carrying out theater security cooperation and deterrence missions, and maritime security operations, such as anti-piracy.
But the LCS vessels cannot successfully perform three other core missions envisioned for them — forward presence, sea control or power projection missions — and they can provide only limited humanitarian assistance or disaster relief operations, sources said.
The shortcomings are well known in the fleet, prompting a perception that service leaders are looking for missions to fit LCS, rather than the other way around."
|LCS - Straight to the Bottom?|
While there has been speculation that the program will be terminated after 24 seaframes, I'm not at all certain that that will happen. This may be the program that the Navy rides right to the bottom. Potentially, this could mean that a quarter of our future battle fleet will consist of a ship that the Navy, itself, has deemed unable to fulfill its missions.
And yet, some people still support this thing?!