Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: US Navy Cancels Littoral Combat Ship LCS4
Softwar    11/1/2007 4:04:02 PM
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni071101_1_n.shtml US Navy cancels LCS 4 The US Navy (USN) has announced that it has cancelled LCS 4, the fourth Littoral Combat Ship, stating that it "could not reach agreement on the terms of a modified contract" with shipbuilder General Dynamics. At a press conference on 1 November, reporters were informed that the contract for the ship with General Dynamics was cancelled during a late-evening phone call on 31 October, after arrangements to move from a cost-plus to a fixed-price contract fell through. The final offer from General Dynamics on the cost of LCS 4 was "substantially higher" than what the navy was prepared to pay, the USN said, but insisted that the service was still "committed" to the LCS project. This decision, following the cancellation of the LCS 3 ship contract with Lockheed Martin in April 2007, leaves just the initial two prototype ships from an initial requirement of six. The USN said that it is "unlikely" a decision will be made on which platform it will commit to in 2008, but hopes to make a selection in 2009. The USN added that it still had to negotiate terms to retain some of the long lead items already purchased for LCS 4. The two LCS prototypes are still expected for delivery in 2008 but the delivery schedule may slip to later in the year as the termination affects shipyard operations.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Herald1234    "Cough", Lawman, "cough".    11/1/2007 4:56:36 PM
Did I not say in that other thread that US warship programs were in total disarray, the shipbuilders were completely off the reservation, PEO was a circus, and that we were in serious as in critical trouble?
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/1/2007 8:18:32 PM

Did I not say in that other thread that US warship programs were in total disarray, the shipbuilders were completely off the reservation, PEO was a circus, and that we were in serious as in critical trouble?

 

Herald



Dept of Commerce wrote a report in 2005 reporting about the parlous state of affairs, and even the team that came back after helping out with HMS Astute did a follow up report (which also ended up in Australia to try and give us warning shots)
 
what gets me is that USN went through this development/costing crisis in WW2 and worked out a model which is still regarded as viable (ie fixed price with recognised profit margin subject to the vendor showing the naval bureau all costs schedules)
 
It doesn't come as a surpise, and it should send a warning to industry that the "snouts in the trough days" are at risk...
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       11/2/2007 9:06:29 PM
I say good riddance! The LCS's suprisingly low capability and ludicrous expense make it a non-viable budget item. We'd be better off just building more destroyers with armed helos/UAV's on board as well as upgrading the destroyers we already have.
 
Quote    Reply

John Barry       11/4/2007 5:04:15 AM
No chance of it, but won't it be worth firing a shot across the US defence contactors' bow and buy a few ships from foreign yards? 
 
Quote    Reply

GreyJackal       11/4/2007 7:55:49 AM
How about replacing the LCS with the Bangaram class patrol vessels. They only cost $12.5 million per ship. Light weight, long endurance and a 30mm gun to shoot with.
 
What you guys think of this idea? 
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       11/4/2007 8:52:26 AM

I say good riddance! The LCS's suprisingly low capability and ludicrous expense make it a non-viable budget item. We'd be better off just building more destroyers with armed helos/UAV's on board as well as upgrading the destroyers we already have.
Except that even at the LCS's inflated prices, we could still buy three for the price of a new Burke. 

The USN needs a large number of hulls to replace the MCMs and FFGs that are going to be retired soon.

 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       11/4/2007 8:55:16 AM

How about replacing the LCS with the Bangaram class patrol vessels. They only cost $12.5 million per ship. Light weight, long endurance and a 30mm gun to shoot with.

 

What you guys think of this idea? 


It's too small to self deploy, doesn't have near the endurance or seakeeping of the LCS, can't carry a helo and doesn't address two of the core missions of the LCS - MIW and ASW.
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       11/21/2007 10:53:56 PM



I say good riddance! The LCS's suprisingly low capability and ludicrous expense make it a non-viable budget item. We'd be better off just building more destroyers with armed helos/UAV's on board as well as upgrading the destroyers we already have.

Except that even at the LCS's inflated prices, we could still buy three for the price of a new Burke.  The USN needs a large number of hulls to replace the MCMs and FFGs that are going to be retired soon.

A destroyer will be be better than the LCS simply because it can cross oceans with ease and deploy the same minehunting equipment and helicopters that the smaller vessels can. The LCS's are simply too low in capability to justify their price and I'll take one destroyer over three LCS's if it boiled down to money.
 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith       11/22/2007 12:31:35 AM
But one destroyer can't be in three places.  And why does the Navy need 90 some odd VLS, a brace of Harpoon launchers and a crew of over 400 to chase down pirates in 50 ft open boats?  The 170 ft Cyclone class would be more than sufficient for the job.  They may not be as comfortable as an 800 ft psuedo-battleship destroyer (DDG-1000), but all you have to do is make it a specialized volunteer unit like the subs and sailors will line up to go bust pirates...hot bunking and all.
 
Not enough endurance?  Send a tender.  Not a massive fleet supply ship that feeds 5,000 sailors, eight major surface combatants and a bunch of squadrons of airplanes.  I'm talking about a small freighter of a few thousand tons that can stay at sea and supply fuel and provisions to a small squadron (4-6?) of 450 ton patrol boats with crews of a few dozen.  If you want to be real clever, the tender would provide air support for the squadron as well.  A composite unit like that could cover a lot more water than a single impossibly expensive gold plated monument to Alfred Mahon.
 
The surface Navy is broken because it cannot wrap itself around any problem that doesn't look like the Battle of Jutland or Leyte Gulf; and the same way the Marines are always re-equipping themselves to retake Tarawa, or have to maintain a third independent US air force because they got left alone on Guadalcanal 65 years ago.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics