(Defense Daily) Strengthening procurement and self-building by foreign designers, Vietnam is showing the efforts to narrow the gap in military power.

Gary Li is head of Marine & Aviation Forecasting, Exclusive Analysis, London. He has a review of the process of military modernization in Vietnam in recent times.

On Jan. 17, Vietnam unveiled its first homemade warship. Seemingly a heavily modified Russian Tarantul corvette, the new ship is equipped with anti-ship missiles and artillery systems.

Although unimpressive by modern warship standards, this unveiling reflects Vietnam's concerted efforts at developing its regional naval power to offset the growing capabilities of its larger neighbor, China.

Vietnam appears to be upping the ante in its disputes with China over the past few years in the South China Sea. As Vietnam's economy grows, it is faced with the same insatiable appetite for oil as China did during its own reforms. Some of its major offshore oilfields, such as the Bach Ho, are expected to run out in 2020, thus making the need to explore and drill in new basins all the more pressing.

However, China has proved that it is willing and able to disrupt these activities through the combined efforts of its Navy and its marine paramilitary forces. The former is well on the way to achieving its goal of having a blue-water Navy by 2050, with its first aircraft carrier already undertaking sea trials.

While much speculation and effort has focused on the growth of Chinese naval power over the past decade, little notice has been paid to Vietnam’s growing military ambitions. In 2009, it bought six Russian Kilo-class diesel attack submarines for about $3.2 billion, a considerable chunk of its defense budget and Russia's largest naval export contract.

In late 2011, the Dutch Schelde shipyard signed a contract to build four Sigma-class corvettes for Vietnam, with two being built in the country itself under Dutch supervision.

It is not only the Vietnamese Navy that is upgrading its fleet; the Vietnamese Marine Police (VMP) has purchased several offshore patrol vessels from the Dutch Damen group, including one that is more than 1,000 tons and can carry a helicopter, which will be the largest ship in the VMP. This would give the VMP considerable punch against increased numbers of 1,000-ton-plus vessels of the Chinese Marine Surveillance Agency in the South China Sea.

These are not purely turnkey imports. The inclusion of licensed production and the building of specialized maintenance facilities along with the vessels themselves are helping establish a nascent naval research and development infrastructure within Vietnam. And the timing helps Vietnam take advantage of China's inability to acquire foreign arms imports (either due to embargoes or fears of reverse-engineering, as in the case with Russia), as well as help form strategic alliances with China's old rival, India.

The latter stated in September that it will sell Vietnam the BrahMos cruise missile to augment Vietnam's coastal deterrence suites, which already include the Russian Bastion system. It is perhaps not a coincidence that India made this decision at a time when the Indian state oil company, ONGC, announced plans to jointly explore and develop Vietnam's claimant oil blocks in the South China Sea. India also is helping Vietnam train its crews for the new Kilo subs once they begin to arrive in 2014.

However, it is reasonable to wonder if Vietnam's efforts are all in vain. The Vietnamese Navy has never had as much prestige as the Army, with the latter being the main force that decided the bloody Vietnam War.

Still, that appears to be changing, as Vietnamese state propaganda is striving to increase the visibility of its marine forces, especially in the garrisons in the Spratly Islands.

This growth of a semimanufactured provenance of the Navy is aimed to prepare its people for the possibilities of future offshore conflicts. The funding for the Navy also has been drastically increased over the past few years.

Strategically, Vietnam actually has the advantage over China. Far from being the underdog that Vietnam likes to portray itself to the world, it actually possesses some of the largest and most numerous of the disputed Spratly Islands, while China has only half a dozen reef-sized forts and pillboxes. While the ever-expanding Chinese fleet seems larger and more advanced, it has to travel vast distances to reach the ends of its claimant zone.

Vietnam, on the other hand, is contesting an area that is right on its doorstep. Its fleet of missile-armed light corvettes and submarines can strike and retreat into their homeports at will, while a stricken Chinese fleet would more or less be lost.

Vietnam does not need to match China ship for ship, but rather take its doctrine of guerrilla warfare to the high seas. An asymmetrical strategy, combined with the forging of timely alliances with China's rivals, places Vietnam well for the coming conflict. Whether this turns out to be a hot war, however, is still likely to be decided at the conference tables. But one thing is certain, Vietnam is making sure it has all the best cards before sitting down to talk.

The UH-60M Black Hawk is currently the most advanced UH-60/S-70 model, whose variants are in service with the US Army and over 20 other countries around the world. To date, UH-60M customers include the USA, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, plus a request from Egypt. Unlike global competitors such as Russia’s Mi-8/17 series, however, the UH-60’s operational armament is generally limited to door guns. That may be about to change, thanks to a UAE initiative.

Colombia currently flies the armed S-70 “Arpia III”, and Sikorsky has worked on armed “AH-60” versions as an offering in some foreign competitions, but efforts to sell the concept in Australia and elsewhere were less successful. Nevertheless, Sikorsky executives see considerable potential for multi-role helicopters and conversion kits, in an era of global insurgencies, tight budgets, and limited helicopter numbers. Now, the UAE has become their launch customer. What is Sikorsky’s Battlehawk, and what are their plans?...

The Austrian Army will sell, scrap or recycle two-thirds of its armored vehicles by late 2013, allowing it to save up to 15 million euros yearly, Defence Minister Norbert Darabos announced Nov. 23.

"We are getting rid of cost-intensive equipment which represents an expensive burden for the army and which we no longer need," Darabos said.

The number of armored vehicles, which has already seen cuts over the past four years, will shrink to 389 by the end of 2013, from 1,147.

Several models, including more than 400 Saurers dating back to the 1960s, will be scrapped entirely, while others will be recycled as spare parts for other vehicles.

Further models, such as the more modern Leopard tanks, will be put up for sale. Several governments and firms have already expressed interest, the defense ministry said.

The sales should help bring in 19 million euros ($25.5 million), although 2 million euros will go toward destroying ammunition.

Additionally, the army will save up to 15 million euros per year in maintenance through the cuts, according to the ministry.

"We need more than ever to adapt our capabilities to realistic deployment scenarios," Darabos said.

Where Austria once stood with its back against the Iron Curtain, with the prospect of a conventional war with the Soviet bloc on its doorstep, now "we face cyber threats, terrorist threats: these are the challenges of the future," he said.

WASHINGTON: The US is open to Indian participation in its Joint Strike Fighter programme that would finally lead to its purchase of fifth generation F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter, a top Pentagon official has said.

"There is nothing on our side, no principle which bars that on our side, Indian participation in the Joint Strike Fighter. Right now, they're focused on these aircraft which are top-of-the-line fourth-gen fighters," Under Secretary of Defence for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Ashton Carter said yesterday.

U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Ashton Carter, head of acquisitions at the Pentagon, hinted at the possibility saying that there was "nothing on our side, no principle that bar Indian participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program."

"Right now," he added, "they're focused on these aircraft which are top-of-the-line fourth-generation fighters."

Carter was delivering a keynote address on "US-India Defense Relations" at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, on the occasion of the release of a report on India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) programme.

At a cost of about USD 10 billion for 126 aircraft, the MMRCA competition is the largest Indian fighter tender in years.

Determined to increase its defenses and become a regional superpower, India plans to spend up to $30 billion on its military by 2012. In recent months, it inducted a long-range, nuclear-tipped missile into its armed forces, unveiling a defense spending budget spiked by 24 percent since last year.

The United States' consideration of offering the F-35 to India isn't new.

In 2007, Lockheed Martin briefed Indian air force officials on the stealth aircraft but plans for a sale were subsequently blocked by Washington.

India's interest, though, remains.

Lockheed Martin Vice President Orville Prins recently confirmed that the company had received an official interest request by the Indian navy. The request concerned naval variants of the F-35, including the F-35B STOVL and F-35C.

"We are going to offer our aircraft to them," he was quoted saying by the Defense Update Web site.

The possible release of Joint Strike Fighter program technology to India marks a significant shift in policy toward New Delhi, a change resulting from growing concern over the military growth of China.

Also, if the United States holds out on its initial reservations, it may lose a potential client to Russia.

India is considering buying 250 T-50 fifth-generation fighters from Russia in an ambitious joint development project with Sukhoi.

A maritime arms race is under way in the South China Sea. China is already the dominant regional naval power and many of its new systems could one day threaten US naval dominance as well.

No wonder then that so many of its neighbours are worried who are engaged in long-running maritime disputes with Beijing.

According to Dr Andrew Erickson, a China expert at the US Naval War College: "China does not want to start a war, but rather seeks to wield its growing military might to 'win without fighting' by deterring actions that it views as detrimental to its core national interests."

Three weapons systems are emblematic of China's broadening strategic horizons. Those are DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, aircraft carrier and J-20 fighter.

China's first aircraft carrier will begin sea trials later this year. Late last year, the first pictures were leaked of the prototype of Beijing's new "stealth" fighter. And US military experts believe that China has begun to deploy the world's first long-range ballistic missile capable of hitting a moving ship at sea.

Dr Erickson says China's capabilities thus far have been focused on developing a regional anti-access or area denial strategy to prevent Taiwan from declaring independence.

In part this strategy rests upon developing credible weapons systems to hold US carrier battle groups at risk should Washington elect to intervene.

China deploys a formidable array of missiles and other weapons that range far out from its own shores.

Of these, the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile is unique; a land-based system that could potentially target US carrier battle groups that have long been the corner-stone of Washington's maritime might.

American officials and the director-general of Taiwan's National Security Bureau say that China has already begun to deploy the DF-21D.

The DF-21D (known in the West as the CSS-5) is fired from a wheeled transporter vehicle and has a range in excess of 1,500km. It is armed with a manoeuvrable warhead that gives the Chinese military the ability to strike ships in the western Pacific Ocean.

It is easy to see why China would want such a missile. It is all about limiting the pre-eminent naval power in the region, the US, from intervening in any future crisis involving Taiwan.

Ever since the Pacific campaign of World War II, aircraft carriers have been the dominant means of projecting naval power.

China too is now entering the carrier race, albeit from a standing start. An old Soviet-era carrier - the Varyag - was purchased from Ukraine and has been extensively refitted.

China's first carrier will operate the new J-15 Flying Shark strike fighter, based on another Russian design, the Sukhoi SU-33 jet.

The carrier is reported to be due to begin sea trials in the summer. Once operational it would give the Chinese Navy a significant new capability in its continuing disputes with its maritime neighbours.

But Western experts note that this carrier will largely serve a training role. Carrier operations require significant expertise which can only be built up over time. The vessel is unlikely to deploy the wide range of aircraft available to the commander of a US Naval carrier air group.

Nonetheless, Dr Erickson says China will use the carrier to "project a bit of power, confer prestige on a rising great power, and master basic procedures".

Its maiden flight, last January, came only hours before a visit by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates to Beijing, a coincidence which many analysts saw as a deliberate signal by China.

Douglas Barrie, from the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, says China's J-20 cannot match the US equivalents.

But he added: "The aircraft does mark China's ambitions in terms of developing its air combat capability, and of its defence aerospace industrial base."

Mr Barrie argues that the introduction of significant numbers of J-20-based fighters would "pose an increased challenge to other regional powers, and to US forces in Asia Pacific".

Source: BBC

According to the company, Saab 2000 is an ideal partner for the Indian Navy’s requirement of an aircraft with long range, extended time on station, fast response, long service life and anti surface warfare capabilities. The aircraft maintains a cruising speed of 350 knots, it can climb to an altitude of 20,000 ft in 10 minutes, reaching operating area 1,000 nautical miles afar within three hours. It can operate from high altitude airfields, taking off with maximum load and fuel even at very hot temperatures.

The Saab 2000 MPA can be equipped with Saab RBS15 anti-ship missile system and its associated Command & Control (C2) system supporting mission planning of missile launching zones, trajectories and target seeking activities. The Saab 2000 MPA can operate at a maximum range exceeding 2,000 nautical miles, with mission endurance exceeding 9.5 hours.

Accordingly, the Thi Lang was installed four antennas produced by China itself. Currently, the type of radar is used on the Shi Lang aircraft carrier has not been announced.

According to data from Strategy Page, radar stations were installed on the aircraft carrier Shi Lang has the same parameters of the radar parameters produced by the U.S. built Aegis system. In addition, the ship also arranged electronic devices and implemented systems of computer information networks.

Shi Lang owns short-range artillery systems have been improved Type 730, combined missile FL-3000N, able to destroy air targets at distances up to 9km. The missile has diameter of 12cm, 2m long.

China has purchased aircraft carrier Varyag of Ukraine in 1998 and then improved and renamed Shi Lang. Currently, China is conducting repair and modernize it.

According to previous notice, by 2011 China will test the carrier and the end of 2012 will be armed for the navy.

China's Defense Ministry plan construct series of aircraft carrier based on aircraft carrier Varyag which purchased from Ukraine.

France is the NATO forces leading in Libya. Along with the deployment of aircrafts, frigates and submarines, the presence of the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle gave considerable power for NATO forces. To learn more about the pride of the French Navy, Defense Daily would like to introduce the article by Jonathan Beale - Defence correspondent, BBC News.

Louis, one of the pilots, gave the BBC an insight into one of his sorties.

It is the aircraft carrier Britain no longer has.

The Charles de Gaulle is not just the French Navy's flagship. It is a projection of the nation's power that can be deployed almost anywhere in the world.

We joined the nuclear powered carrier off Libya's coast. This is where the Charles de Gaulle has been conducting military operations for the past two months.

Launching an endless stream of warplanes loaded with bombs by day and by night. A giant floating runway within easy reach of Colonel Gaddafi's forces.

Her location always shifting according to the weather and the targets. The ship can move as much as 1,000km over a 24 hour period.

On board, the first thing that hits you is the noise.

The sudden roar of jet engines is followed by the thud of a steam catapult as planes are propelled from zero to 250 kilometres an hour in a few seconds.

On deck it is deafening and the sheer force of the catapult launch shakes the entire structure of the 40,000 tonne warship.

Below decks, in two massive hangars aircrew maintain a fleet of 10 Rafale jets and six older Super Etendards around the clock.

The carrier also has two Hawkeye surveillance planes - the eyes and ears for French and other Nato warplanes flying over Libya.

Their giant wings are only unfolded when they prepare to fly.

There is also a fleet of helicopters to ferry crew, commanders and cargo.

At times it is hard to see how this can all fit onto one ship just over 260 metres long.

Planes are moved up onto the deck by two giant hydraulic lifts. Ground crew swarm around the jets as they are loaded with bombs and fuel.

After an elaborate set of hand movements by the marshals, the signal is given for the plane to launch.

The pilot pushes his head back in the seat in preparation for the sudden impact.

For these French pilots the great advantage of flying off a carrier is that they will be over their targets within 20 minutes.

One of the pilots, Louis, says it is easier to react to developments on the ground.

British pilots flying from their temporary base in southern Italy have a much longer journey.

Even harder than taking off from a carrier is the landing.

Pilots have just seconds to get their position right to catch one of three giant steel cables that lie across the deck with the hook lowered from the plane.

It will bring them to a jolting halt. When you consider the strains and forces at play it is hard to understand how the ship, plane and human body all come out in one piece.

France is currently the only European country to have this capability.

The United States, of course, has even larger carriers with catapults and traps, but so far it has deployed none for operations over Libya.

Until last year Britain had the Ark Royal with its fleet of Harrier jump jets.

But the Ark Royal was one of the big casualties of the UK Defence Review. Though Britain has ordered two new carriers, they will not be in service for a decade.

The Charles de Gaulle's Captain Jean-Philippe Rolland says it will be "difficult" for the Royal Navy to regenerate the capability.

France has promised to help train British crews, but he warns it could take another five or ten years after the carriers are built for Britain to fully regain those lost skills.

Trafalgar and Nelson seems a distant memory. France's naval presence off Libya is bigger than that of the Royal Navy.

Where the Charles de Gaulle is accompanied by three destroyers, a supply ship and a nuclear-powered submarine, Britain has one destroyer, a submarine and a minehunter.

Capt Rolland says for this operation Nato would ideally have two or three carriers.

But with a gallic shrug he adds: "You do with what you have".

In a sign that Nato's stepping up the offensive both Britain and France should soon each have an assault ship carrying ground attack helicopters close by.

When I ask the commander of the task force whether this marks a new phase of the campaign he says it is still to be decided.

But Rear-Admiral Philippe Coindreau says "all possibilities" are being considered - apart from putting troops on the ground.

For the 2,000 crew on board the Charles de Gaulle it has been a long time at sea.

The ship had only just returned home to Toulon from a four-month mission in the Arabian Gulf, when she was redeployed at short notice to take part in operations over Libya.

Morale is maintained by sackfuls of letters from back home, along with plenty of French food.

The ship even has its own bakery on board, serving fresh croissants and baguettes each morning.

In the junior officers mess there is wine with the evening meal, though pilots have to ensure that there is a gap of 12 hours from "bottle to throttle".

No one on board knows when they will be coming home.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The cost of building the F-35 fighter jet, set to replace a large part of the US warplane fleet, is "unaffordable" in its current version and must be reviewed, the Pentagon's top acquisition official said Thursday.

"Over the lifetime of this program, the decade or so, the per-aircraft cost of the 2,443 aircraft we want has doubled in real terms," said Ashton Carter, the under secretary of Defence for acquisition, technology and logistics.

"That's our forecast for how much the aircraft's going to cost.

"Said differently, that's what it's going to cost if we keep doing what we're doing. And that's unacceptable. It's unaffordable at that rate."

The cost of the plane has jumped to $385 billion, about $103 million per plane in constant dollars or $113 million in fiscal year 2011 dollars, said Christine Fox, the Defence Department's director of cost assessment and program evaluation.

Republican Senator John McCain called the figure "truly troubling," considering the original price was $69 million per airplane.

"The facts regarding this program are truly troubling," said McCain. "No program should expect to be continued with that kind of track record, especially in our current fiscal climate," said McCain.

"It seems to me we have to start at least considering alternatives"

The F-35 or Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), made by Lockheed Martin, is the Pentagon's most costly weapons program.

An additional appropriation of $4 billion brings the cost of development of the plane to $51 billion, "dismaying" figures," said Michigan Senator Carl Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"These are dismaying; indeed, they are disturbing numbers in costs to us and to the taxpayers of the United States," Levin said.

Carter attributed the cost overruns and delays to the plane's complexities and its radar-evading equipment, as well as the short-takeoff and vertical takeoff versions. And he said the culture of easy money at the Pentagon since 9/11 was also to blame.

"In the decade of ever-increasing Defence budgets, which we just enjoyed, it was always possible for our managers, when they ran into a technical problem or a difficult choice, to reach for more money," said Carter. "And the money was available in the decade after 9/11."

The Independence class is a class of littoral combat ships built for the United States Navy.

The hull design evolved from a project at Austal to design a 40 knot cruise ship. That hull design evolved into the high-speed trimaran ferry Benchijigua Express and the Independence class was then proposed by General Dynamics and Austal as a contender for USN plans to build a fleet of small, multipurpose warships to operate in the littoral zone. Two ships were approved, to compete with Lockheed Martin's Freedom class design for a construction contract of up to 55 vessels.

As of 2010, the lead ship is active, while a second ship is under construction. Despite initial plans to only accept one of the Independence and Freedom classes, the USN has requested that Congress order ten ships of each class.

Planning for a class of small, multipurpose warships to operate in the littoral zone began in the early 2000s. In July 2003, a proposal by General Dynamics (partnering with Austal USA, the American subsidiary of Australian shipbuilder Austal) was approved by the USN, with a contract for two vessels. These would then be compared to two ships built by Lockheed Martin to determine which design would be taken up by the Navy for a production run of up to 55 ships.

The first ship, USS Independence was laid down at the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Alabama, on 19 January 2006. The planned second ship was cancelled in November 2007, but reordered in May 2009, and laid down in December of that year as USS Coronado, shortly before Independence was launched.

The development and construction of Independence as of June 2009 was running at 220% over-budget. The total projected cost for the ship is $704 million. The Navy had originally projected the cost at $220 million. Independence began builder's trials in July 2009, three days behind schedule because of maintenance issues. A leak in the port gas turbine saw the order of trials altered, but builder's and acceptance trials were completed by November. And although her first INSURV inspection revealed 2,080 deficiencies, these were rectified in time for the ship to be handed over to the USN in mid-December, and commissioned in mid-January 2010.

Navy leaders said that the fixed price competition offered the Austal design an equal shot, in spite of its excess size and cost and limited service.

After much inconsistency on how testing and orders were to proceed, in November 2010, the USN asked that Congress approve ten of both the Independence and Freedom classes.

The Independence class design began life at Austal as a platform for a high speed cruise ship. The principal requirements of that project were speed, stability and passenger comfort and Austal's team determined that the trimaran hull form offered significant passenger comfort and stability advantages over both a catamaran and a monohull. The high speed cruise ship project evolved into Austal's commercial high-speed trimaran ferry Benchijigua Express. The ships are 127.4 m (418 ft) long, with a beam of 31.6 m (104 ft), and a draft of 13 ft (3.96 m). Their displacement is rated at 2,176 tons light, 2,784 tons full, and 608 tons deadweight.

The standard ship's company is 40-strong, although this can increase depending on the ship's role with mission-specific personnel. The habitability area is located under the bridge where bunks for ships personnel are situated. The helm is controlled by joysticks instead of traditional steering wheels.

Although the trimaran hull increases the total surface area, it is still able to reach sustainable speeds of about 50 knots (93 km/h; 58 mph), with a range of 10,000 nautical miles (19,000 km; 12,000 mi).[citation needed] Austal claims that the design will use a third less fuel than the competing Freedom-class, but the Congressional Budget Office found that fuel would account for 18 percent or less of the total lifetime cost of Freedom.

The Independence class carries a default armament for self-defense, and command and control. However unlike traditional fighting ships with fixed armament such as guns and missiles, tailored mission modules can be configured for one mission package at a time. Modules may consist of manned aircraft, unmanned vehicles, off-board sensors, or mission-manning detachments.

The interior volume and payload is greater than some destroyers and is sufficient to serve as a high-speed transport and maneuver platform. The mission bay is 15,200 square feet (1,410 m2), and takes up most of the deck below the hangar and flight deck. With 11,000 cubic metres (390,000 cu ft) of payload volume, it was designed with enough payload and volume to carry out one mission with a separate mission module in reserve, allowing the ship to do multiple missions without having to be refitted.

One Mobicon Flexible Container Handling System is carried on each ship in order to move mission containers.

In addition to cargo or container-sized mission modules, the bay can carry four lanes of multiple Strykers, armored Humvees, and their associated troops. An elevator allows air transport of packages the size of a 20-foot-long (6.1 m) shipping container that can be moved into the mission bay while at sea. A side access ramp allows for vehicle roll-on/roll-off loading to a dock and allows the ship to transport the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

The Raytheon Evolved SeaRAM missile defense system is installed on the hangar roof. The SeaRAM combines the sensors of the Phalanx 1B close-in weapon system with an 11-missile launcher for the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), creating an autonomous system.

The Independence class ships also has an integrated LOS Mast, Sea Giraffe 3D Radar and SeaStar Safire FLIR. Northrop Grumman has demonstrated sensor fusion of on and off-board systems in the Integrated Combat Management System (ICMS) used on the LCS. Side and forward surfaces are angled for reduced radar profile. In addition, H-60 series helicopters provide airlift, rescue, anti-submarine, radar picket and anti-ship capabilities with torpedoes and missiles.

The flight deck, 1,030 m2 (11,100 sq ft), can support the operation of two SH-60 Seahawk helicopters, multiple unmanned aerial vehicles, or one CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopter. The trimaran hull will allow flight operations up to sea state 5.

The vessels have an Interior Communications Center that can be curtained off from the rest of bridge instead of the heavily protected Combat Information Center found on Navy warships.

The control system for this class is provided by General Dynamics, while Lockheed provides their own control system for their variant of the LCS.

Austal has proposed a much smaller and slower trimaran, called the 'Multi-Role Vessel' or 'Multi-Role Corvette'. Though it is only half the size of their LCS design, it would still be useful for border protection and counter piracy operations.

A Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a type of relatively small surface vessel intended for operations in the littoral zone (close to shore). It is "envisioned to be a networked, agile, stealthy surface combatant capable of defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in the littorals."

Two ship classes are the first examples of the LCS in the U.S. Navy: the Freedom-class and the Independence-class. LCS designs are slightly smaller than the US Navy's guided missile frigates, and have been likened to corvettes of other navies.

However, the LCS designs add the capabilities of a small assault transport with a flight deck and hangar large enough to base two SH-60 Seahawk helicopters, the capability to recover and launch small boats from a stern ramp, and enough cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with armoured fighting vehicles to a roll-on/roll-off port facility. The standard armament for the LCS is Mk 110 57 mm guns. It will also be able to launch autonomous air, surface, and underwater vehicles. Although the LCS designs offer less air defense and surface-to-surface capabilities than comparable destroyers, the LCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission module space and a shallow draft.

The concept behind the littoral combat ship, as described by former Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England, is to "create a small, fast, maneuverable and relatively inexpensive member of the DD(X) family of ships." The ship is easy to reconfigure for different roles, including anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, anti-surface warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, homeland defense, maritime intercept, special operations, and logistics. Due to its modular design, the LCS will be able to replace slower, more specialized ships such as minesweepers and larger assault ships.

Most of the functions of the mission modules will be performed by carried vehicles such as the helicopters or unmanned vehicles such as the Spartan Scout, AN/WLD-1 RMS Remote Minehunting System and MQ-8B Fire Scout. By performing functions such as sonar sweeps for mines or submarines or torpedo launches against hostile submarines at some distance from the ship's hull, the crew is placed at less risk. This is part of the Navy's goal to "unman the front lines."

However Thales has sold one Captas 4 antisubmarine sonar to the US Navy to be towed behind the LCS itself, with a potential order of 25 units.

Also by placing sensors on remote vehicles the LCS will be able to exploit concepts such as bistatic sonar without actually being in two places at the same time.

A report by the Pentagon's director of Operational Test and Evaluation found that neither design was expected to "be survivable in a hostile combat environment" and that neither ship could withstand the Navy's full ship shock trials.

The combat abilities of the LCS were said to be "very modest" even before the cancellation of the XM501 Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System.

Under Secretary of the Navy Robert O. Work has said that Marines will deploy from the Littoral combat ship.

The Independence-class is said to have better helicopter facilities and more internal space while the Freedom-class is said to be better able to launch and recover boats in high seas. Adm. Gary Roughead has said that a mix of both types would be "operationally advantageous".

The LCS is reconfigured for various roles by changing mission modules. These include weapon systems, sensors, carried craft and mission crews.

The Surface Warfare Mission Module includes two 30mm Gun Mission Modules (GMM) manufactured by Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.

The United States Navy launched its first littoral combat ship, Sea Fighter, in 2003. Sea Fighter used a SWATH type hull and was designated as Fast Sea Frame or FSF-1.[12] The ship was put into service in 2005 and serves as an experimental test bed ship using mission modules.

In 2004, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Raytheon submitted designs to the Navy of their proposed littoral combat ships. It was decided to produce two vessels each (Flight 0) of the Lockheed Martin design (LCS-1 and LCS-3) and of the General Dynamics design (LCS-2 and LCS-4). After these are brought into service, and experience has been gathered on the usability and efficiency of the designs, the future design for the class will be chosen (Flight I). This may be a decision to use one or the other design in whole, or a combined form made by selecting features from each, or a mixed fleet of both designs. The Navy currently plans to build 55 of these ships.

On 9 May 2005, Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England announced that the first LCS would be named USS Freedom (LCS-1). Her keel was laid down on 2 June 2005 at Marinette Marine, Marinette, Wisconsin.[14] The contract to build the ship was managed by Lockheed's Maritime Systems and Sensors (MS2) division, directed by Fred Moosally.[15] On 23 September 2006, LCS-1 was christened and launched at the Marinette Marine shipyard.

On 19 January 2006, the keel for the General Dynamics trimaran, USS Independence (LCS-2), was laid at the Austal USA shipyards in Mobile, Alabama. LCS-2 was launched 30 April 2008.

On 12 April 2007, the Navy canceled the contract with Lockheed Martin for the construction of LCS-3 after negotiations to control cost overruns failed. The second General Dynamics ship (LCS-4) was also canceled on November 1, 2007 after similar cost overruns on their first ship. The Navy currently plans a brand new bidding process for the next three ships, with the winner building two ships and the loser only one.

In the September 26, 2008 U.S. Presidential debate, John McCain denounced the littoral combat ship as an example of botched contracting procedures that drive up the costs of ships unnecessarily.

On 8 November 2008, the Freedom was commissioned in Veteran's Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

In March 2009, Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter announced that LCS-3 would be named the USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) after Fort Worth, Texas [22] and the fourth ship would be named the USS Coronado (LCS-4) after Coronado, California.[23][24] United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Chairman Gene Taylor (Mississippi) criticized the lack of cost controls on the LCS program, saying that during his tour of the Austal shipyard that "I saw absolutely no effort being made to save the taxpayers a dime."[25] Also in March 2009, the Navy renewed the contract with Lockheed to build its second LCS, the USS Fort Worth (LCS-3).

On 6 April 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced a Department of Defense budget that would purchase three LCS in FY '10 with a goal of 55 total ships.

On 1 May 2009, the Navy renewed the contract with Austal/GD to build its second Trimaran LCS, the USS Coronado (LCS-4), with delivery scheduled for May 2012.

On 15 May 2009, Sean Stackley said that the Navy had no current plans to downselect to a single design and senior Navy officials pointed out the two designs have complementary features.

On 22 May 2009, former Navy Secretary John Lehman cited the example of the Littoral Combat Ship as an example of a flawed acquisition program in which dozens of task orders were changed daily and called for the use of fixed-price contracts. Also Congressman Joe Sestak leaked that the LCS did not have the needed bandwidth for the anti-submarine mission.

On 12 June 2009, during a hearing of the House Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee, Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor, D-Miss said that other contractors would jump at the chance to build LCS as the subcommittee added language that would require The Navy to open bidding on the project if either lead contractor walked away from the $460 million fixed price contracts that would be offered. In response the Naval Sea Systems Command studied whether reducing the top speed requirement from 40 knots to 30 would help keep the ships under the price cap.

On 16 June 2009, Vice Adm. Barry McCullough told the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services that the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates and minesweepers were too worn out to continue in service to cover the gap if the LCS development process suffered further delays.

Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems released a study that showed that seven LCS can more efficiently perform anti-piracy patrols in the Western Indian Ocean than a fleet of 20 conventional ships for a quarter of the cost.

On 30 June 2009, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead said that costs have nearly stabilized on the next batch of LCS vessels and that he would work with Congress to adjust the cost cap on these Naval ships.

On 5 July 2009, Retired U.S. Navy Adm. James Lyons called for termination of the LCS program in favor of a $220 million per ship common design with the USCG that could "meet limited warfare requirements."

On 16 September 2009, Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley and Vice Admiral Barry McCullough said that only one of the contractors would be offered a fixed price contract in 2010 for up to ten ships. This would be the long rumored downselect to a single design. This would be followed in 2012 with an offer for a second shipyard to build up to five additional ships of the same design as the first shipyard's. The Congress has agreed to this plan.

FY2010 budget documents revealed that the total costs of the two lead ships had risen to $637 million for Freedom and $704 million for Independence.

On 16 January 2010, the Independence was commissioned in Mobile, Alabama.

On 4 March 2010, Austal USA split from Bath Iron Works and announced that it would bid on future LCS contacts by itself, so that Austal could for example win the 2010 contract and Bath could win the follow on contract in 2012.

On 23 August 2010, The US Navy announced a delay in awarding the contract for 10 ships until sometime near the end of the year. A meeting of the Defense Acquisition Board scheduled for 29 October 2010 has been delayed and The Navy has indicated that no decision on the contract can be made until this meeting is held.

The GAO found that deploying the first two ships will delay the overall program because these two ships were not available for testing and development so changes may have to be made in the second pair of ships during their construction instead of being planned for before construction started. The US Navy responded that "Early deployment brought LCS operational issues to the forefront much sooner than under the original schedule, some of which would not have been learnt until two years on."

In November 2010, The Navy changed their minds again and asked Congress to allow the order ten of each design, instead of just ten of one type. US Senator Carl Levin said that the change was made because both bids were under the Congressional price cap. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said that unlike the possibility of splitting orders for projects like KC-X or the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136, the Pentagon had already paid the development cost for both designs so there where no further development costs required to build both designs and have them compete for future orders. However every Republican in the United States House of Representatives voted against this plan. And John McCain moved to block it in the Senate.

The Government Accountability Office has identified problems with the designs other than shipbuilding, these include extremely long crew training times, unrealistic maintenance plans and the lack of comprehensive risk assessment.

On 13 December 2010, both production teams extended their current contract prices until December 30 in order to enable to Navy to push through Congressional headwinds. If the Navy fails to achieve approval by that date it will be forced to award only one of the two contracts. The Navy has apparently budgeted $490 million per ship for the 20 ships, while the Congressional Budget Office has projected a cost of $591 million per ship. Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley testified to a Senate panel that the actual price range was $440 to $460 million.

On 29 December 2010, Lockheed Martin and Austal USA received contracts to build more Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) for the U.S. Navy. The new contracts give each shipbuilding team one ship to build now, with another in 2011. Two more per year for each team will follow in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. The contract for Lockheed's ship, the yet-to-be-named LCS 5, is for $437 million. The contract for LCS 6, Austal USA's ship, is for $432 million. The contract awards were announced one day before the prices were to expire. Sean Stackley, the Navy's top weapons buyer, in a conversation with reporters on 29 December 2010 noted that the LCS program was now well within the Congressional cost cap of $480 million per ship. The average per-ship target price for Lockheed ships is $362 million, Stackley said, with a goal of $352 million for each Austal ship. Government-furnished equipment (GFE), such as weapons, add about $25 million to each ship. Another $20 million is figured in for change orders, and a "management reserve" is also included. All told, Stackley said, the average cost to buy an LCS should be between $430 million and $440 million.

The Griffin (missile) will be integrated into the surface warfare module starting in 2014 or 2015 with a longer range version implemented in 2016 or 2017. The anti-submarine module will have its focus changed from stationary systems to en-stride systems that are useful in the open ocean as well as in coastal areas.

Saudi Arabia and Israel have both expressed an interest in a modified version of the Freedom Class vessel, the LCS-I, but Defense News has reported that Israel has dropped out of this project in favor of a new frigate design to be built in Israel.

 However Israel has been unable to talk Germany into subsidizing any more naval vessels so may be forced to return to more reliable American funding.

The Republic of China Navy is also studying the purchase of some US littoral combat ships. The Royal Malaysian Navy intends to purchase much smaller ships that they call littoral combat ships.