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 Trimaran USS Independence (LCS-2) |
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.
