As you also know, the Navy’s restructuring of the LCS force has resulted in two squadrons, one on each coast. Each squadron consists of a single 4-ship group of each of the three mission areas: ASW, MCM, and ASuW. In each group of 4 ships, one of the ships is designated as a non-deployable training vessel. Thus, each mission area consists of just three ships. That means that each squadron has 3 ASW, 3 MCM, and 3 ASuW ships and that, in turn, gives a total fleet force of 6 ASW, 6 MCM, and 6 ASuW ships.
The LCS-MCM is the total replacement for our aging Avengers which are long overdue for retirement (see, "LCS MCM - What's the Point?"). The 6 total LCS-MCM will replace the 14 ships of the Avenger class minesweeper.
The LCS-ASW is the replacement for the ASW aspect of the Perry class frigates. Thus, the 6 total LCS-ASW will replace the 51 ships of the Perry class frigate.
The LCS-ASuW is the replacement for the ASuW aspect of the Perry class frigates. Thus, the 6 total LCS-ASuW will replace the 51 ships of the Perry class frigate.
Okay, with that reminder of the LCS force structure, let’s get back to the LCS and distributed lethality (DL). There is only one question that needs to be asked:
Given the immense importance of mine countermeasures and with only 6 deployable LCS-MCM, does it make sense to risk them in distributed lethality?
Our entire mine countermeasure force is going to be 6 LCS-MCM. If those are sunk (or even just a one or two!) our MCM efforts will go from woefully inadequate to nearly non-existent. Does that seem wise to anyone other than the Navy?
|Another LCS Sunk, Alone, in Distributed Lethality|
The preceding also applies to the LCS-ASW and LCS- ASuW.
With that simple consideration, the idiocy of the Navy’s distributed lethality concept and the use of the LCS in it becomes clearly manifest. There’s really nothing else that needs to be said.