Military Review

Media: US Navy actually recognized the failure of the coastal zone project

After spending billions of dollars, the US Navy finally abandoned the project Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) - the ship of the coastal zone. Already built ships (4 units) will turn into training ones, and all future ones will be equipped for a single combat mission, reports Look with reference to the resource Defense Aerospace.

“The US Navy issued a statement that says about changing the concept of the LCS ships. At the same time, their statement by the US Navy was deliberately formulated so as to minimize the meaning of changing the concept, but it is clear from it that the entire LCS project turned out to be a complete failure, ”the newspaper writes.

At the same time, the statement of the military mentions no technical deficiencies identified in the ship systems, “because of which four coastal ships this year were disabled,” the portal notes.

It follows from the statement that the US Navy "abandons the most important ideas of creating LCS, that is, innovative, but complex mechanisms that should have turned inexpensive (as originally stated) ships with small crews into powerful combat units of coastal areas," the article says .

In fact, "low-cost ships" are very expensive - "562,8 million dollars per ship, which is comparable to the price of the destroyer DDG-51," the newspaper writes.

“Having turned littoral ships into training ones, the Navy simply recognized that they are functionally useless. The LCS concept turned out to be a complete failure, and billions of dollars were wasted, ”indicates the resource.

According to the author, this fact should be of serious concern, since the US Navy just ordered the 22 ship under two contracts from two manufacturers at once.
Photos used:
US Navy / Cmdr. Jason Salata /

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    OLD FART 10 September 2016 10: 16
    These irons .... great goal! But the United States has a printing press of world currency, they can be wrong ...
    1. Finches
      Finches 10 September 2016 10: 34
      I’m not a great specialist in the Navy, but from the very beginning of the promotion of this concept I asked myself a question - what is the difference between these troughs and the ones from the time-tested ships of the coastal zone of small and medium displacement that also operate mainly offshore: corvettes, shock and patrol boats , mine-sweeping ships, coast guard ships?
      Therefore, I thought that this was an ordinary budget cut, however, our Serdyukov wanted to crank out a similar scam with the Mistrals absolutely unnecessary for our fleet and most likely had a gesheft from this, like the American naval commanders from God - as they say, corruption has no nationality ... laughing
      1. Bronis
        Bronis 10 September 2016 11: 09
        Quote: Finches
        but what is the difference between these troughs and the time-tested ships of the coastal zone of small and medium displacement, which also operate mainly offshore: corvettes, shock and patrol boats, mine-sweeping ships, coast guard ships?

        LCS was supposed to be an element of the new concept of the US Navy. In fact, it consisted in the fact that after the collapse of the USSR, there are no worthy opponents at sea and is not expected. Accordingly, the main task of the fleet was to control any foreign coast with the possibility of supporting the intervention. At the top of this "pyramid" was supposed to be the cruiser DD-21 (it was not built either, but the "pocket" destroyers Zumwalt - a smaller version) were launched.
        the role of the LCS was to be multifaceted. It is necessary - it will support them with fire or provide air defense, it is necessary - the special forces will throw in or even work as a transport of ammunition, or even simply supply them with drinking water. But making a "universal" and at the same time a cheap ship is unrealistic. therefore, in the conditions of limited displacement, it was made "modular" - we set a module for a specific task and rejoice.
        LCS is a ship not of YOUR coastal zone, but ALIEN. why drive cruisers and aircraft carriers to where you can handle such a technologically advanced, but still ersatz ... so the main difference from the patrol ships of your coast.
        But alas ... the modularity of technology is understandable, but the "modularity" of the team? And then it turns out that there is an actively developing enemy - China, and Russia was also to be written off.
        So the concept failed. From all planned - 3 zumwalts and several LCS. to the US Navy, almost nothing. The "old man" Arlie Burke continues to be actively built - much more adequate to the situation and suitable in terms of price and quality. However, Americans draw experience and technologies from failed programs.
        1. Finches
          Finches 10 September 2016 11: 38
          Thank you for the clarification! hi
          1. Korney84
            Korney84 10 September 2016 12: 59
            Will be a tutorial "How not to build and for such money."
            1. Inok10
              Inok10 10 September 2016 13: 25
              Quote: Korney84
              Will be a tutorial "How not to build and for such money."

              ... to this "training manual" for the Navy I would add the same "training manual" for the US Air Force - the F-35 ... which is likely to happen in the foreseeable future ... wink
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 11 September 2016 10: 25
                "to this" tutorial "for the Navy, I would add the same" tutorial "for the US Air Force - F-35" ////

                That you subtly noticed! LCS (which will be 22 pieces) and F-35B can interact. If you add heat absorbing
                a layer on the take-off deck of the trimaran, you can receive / launch the F-35B.
                The combination of a stealth ship and a stealth plane can give a good surprise effect.
                1. VP
                  VP 11 September 2016 20: 08
                  Alas, it seems that the States are beginning to become disillusioned with the miraculousness of the main fetish of the last two decades - in "stealth". Probably faced with problems of navigation and combat control in the mode of disconnecting communication systems and locators. Perhaps they just realized that the exhaust was not worth the cost and the rate did not justify itself.
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 11 September 2016 22: 57
                    There is a problem. For example, the huge Zumvolt on ship radars seems like a small fishing schooner. When
                    sailors see him visually, they have a shock.
                    They complained about him: "the ghost ship scares the civilian ships"
                    1. VP
                      VP 12 September 2016 05: 18
                      Well, probably for fishing seiners this can really be a problem.
                      For enemy warships and their coastal complexes, a ship with radars and radio traffic is hardly a "black hole".
          2. Darkmor
            Darkmor 10 September 2016 13: 08
            The idea was not bad - but the implementation let us down.
            In my opinion, they chased too many rabbits at the same time.
            They wanted to make a ship that was faster than their counterparts, less visible, comparable in armament and autonomy, seriously automated and, in addition, not very expensive.

            In principle, they succeeded in achieving high speeds. But trimaran construction, weapons modularity and automation are all expensive.
            In terms of the amount of armaments, this ship seriously lagged behind ours, and even from its Chinese counterparts.
      2. Monarchist
        Monarchist 10 September 2016 13: 16
        With the Mistrals, not everything is unambiguous: the fleet needs a ship of this type, but for what fig did the French choose? As I recall, ships of this type have: South Korea, Italy, France, but you can still find if you wish. South Korea offered cheaper and faster. Apparently, there is not enough gesheft from the Korean?
        1. Allax
          Allax 10 September 2016 17: 30
          Koreans and Italians are even more dependent on the United States than the French. So there the United States would be even easier to block the transfer of the ordered ships to us.
          Well, the version that the Mistrals were France's "encouragement" for its position on South Ossetia should not be dismissed either.
          1. Alex777
            Alex777 11 September 2016 11: 18
            And why should the version about the encouragement be discarded if the GDP itself said this?
      3. Aqela
        Aqela 10 September 2016 13: 46
        Colleague, you still forgot to mention such classic vessels as coastal defense monitors.
        Monitor (Eng. Monitor - “observer, controller”) - a class of low-sided armored ships with powerful artillery weapons, mainly coastal or river action, to suppress coastal batteries and destroy coastal targets of the enemy. Characteristic features of the monitors were: low draft, very low freeboard (only 60-90 cm), placement of a few heavy guns in rotating towers with almost circular shelling, powerful armoring of the entire surface part (sides, decks, towers).
        In response to the start of work on the conversion of the frigate, the northerners began to build their own battleships. According to the project of the inventor John Erickson, the “Monitor” (897 tons) (English “observer”, “controller”) was built, launched on January 30, 1862 and giving the name to this class of ships.
        The US Navy, which first embodied the idea of ​​a monitor, built a significant number of ships of this class. Based on the experience of operations during the Civil War of 1861-1865, American admirals for a long time considered monitors to be the best warships; an additional factor was that the isolationist views prevailing at that time assumed coastal defense as the main task of armored ships.

        I want to draw your special attention to the last phrase.
        The Americans are able to build quite a good coastal defense ship, but at the moment this is not possible due to the lack of isolationism. Those. according to the realities of the current doctrine, it is generally not clear what the hell the United States has taken up such a tug. According to the results, they get useless nonsense.
        1. your1970
          your1970 10 September 2016 16: 06
          quite a good coastal defense ship,-the ship of its defense was built off the ALIEN coast, and not its own ... In principle, there are no fools to attack the USA from the sea
        2. your1970
          your1970 10 September 2016 16: 06
          quite a good coastal defense ship,-the ship of its defense was built off the ALIEN coast, and not its own ... In principle, there are no fools to attack the USA from the sea
    2. st25310
      st25310 10 September 2016 10: 53
      Everything at the stage of the layout was clear ... The ship should be beautiful, but then some kind of cuttlefish turned out! Yes, and an uninitiated person, LCS can easily be confused with LSD. laughing
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 10 September 2016 11: 01
        As a fan of science fiction, I will make the assumption:
        - The United States cooperates with aliens, but the latter obviously do not agree on something to them.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Drzed
        Drzed 11 September 2016 09: 37
        yes no, LCS you will not smell, you will not taste, you will not inject
  2. Vladimir 38
    Vladimir 38 10 September 2016 10: 17
    The scope of the cut is amazing.
  3. Same lech
    Same lech 10 September 2016 10: 18

    They showed with great aplomb the output of these vessels ... how many enthusiasm, the splendor of the power of the USA was expressed ... but in the end one zilch turned out to be.

    Not all that glitters is gold.
    1. sub307
      sub307 10 September 2016 10: 51
      I agree with you, as they say: "it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines ...".
      1. Alex777
        Alex777 10 September 2016 12: 49
        I believe the modular design of warships ingloriously calmed down! hi
    2. spech
      spech 10 September 2016 11: 02
      And Oleg Kaptsov, in their midst, sprinkled an article?
    3. Olga Lysenko
      Olga Lysenko 10 September 2016 12: 33
      How many times have such flights span? the idea is always ambitious, at the project level - above all praise, finances are allocated beyond the limits, publicizing is generally enchanting ... Some time passes and the next zilch appears (((
      And such facts before the fig, and in the space region, and in the field of armaments, and a host of other projects. Do they have at least one successful project, a breakthrough level ??? Or is it a legalized system for cutting rabid grandmas ???
  4. -СтрР° РЅРЅРёРє-
    -СтрР° РЅРЅРёРє- 10 September 2016 10: 19
    In total, we ordered the 22 ship under two contracts from two manufacturers at once.

    They are strange - to order a series without conducting full-fledged tests on prototypes! Or they are in a great hurry - or they are "sawing", but most likely they are in a hurry to "saw". :))
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 10 September 2016 10: 31
      [quote] They are strange - to order a series without conducting full-scale tests on prototypes! / quote]
      Well, with pr.20380 corvettes, isn’t that a similar situation?
      1. Bronis
        Bronis 10 September 2016 12: 06
        [quote = Wiruz] [quote] They are strange - to order a series without conducting full-scale tests on prototypes! / quote]
        Well, do we have a similar situation with the corvettes of 20380? [/ Quote]
        Similar in that they tried to shove a maximum of functionality into a ship very modest in displacement.
        But there are differences. LCS failed, first of all, conceptually. And 20380 is more technologically advanced. The general long-term collapse of shipbuilding and related industries led to the breakdown of everything and everyone.
        The Americans do not need the LCS result in its current form. "Guarding" is needed, but it does not come out as originally wanted.
  5. Kibl
    Kibl 10 September 2016 10: 28
    Half a lard for an iron, however a little expensive .... Money relaxes and softens the brains of American military equipment designers in the sky and the sea. Well, the generals are getting greedier. That's where the striped have such problems with the new military-industrial complex.
    1. dauria
      dauria 10 September 2016 12: 10
      . Here from where the striped have such problems with the new military-industrial complex.

      Everyone has problems with new products, I think. For too long, there have been full-scale clashes between large armies. And how to predict what the new war will be like? (And not clashes with the "partisans") And they also have a peculiarity - the Americans are the first, they have to gropingly look for a path and set "fashion" in the air and at sea. Not a connoisseur of the fleet, but we had a lot of aircraft left in prototypes, remember at least the famous Sukhoi "hundred".
  6. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 10 September 2016 10: 32
    Give them to ukroine-let her around the world! lol
    1. VP
      VP 11 September 2016 20: 13
      They burn again when they bulge out in the ship’s sauna
  7. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 10 September 2016 10: 33
    And how much was ringing! Here she is, this child prodigy - and small and with a helicopter, and this and that, and in one fell swoop seven beating. And what, they will stop a series? Or will they build 22 training? wassat
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 11 September 2016 11: 35
      On some LCS already 2x4 anti-ship missiles before the cabin were spit on stealth.
      Not so small for a speed of 50 knots.
      Let's see what kind of ship it will be of a single task.
      I was calmer while they sawed the modules. hi
      I hope our modularity will no longer be remembered.
      1. Alex777
        Alex777 11 September 2016 15: 28
        I wonder what kind of a single task are they talking about?
        And how will the first 4 differ from the rest?
        The fact that they will be sent "to catch butterflies at the farm" to combat drug trafficking in the coastal waters of the United States is approximately understandable.
        LCS had several primary tasks in coastal waters:
        1) inconspicuous minesweeping,
        2) the landing of saboteurs,
        3) the fight against NPLs (especially with VNEU).
        Obviously, they forget about the first task.
        Remains 3 as the main and 2 as an additional.
        And, I hope, the "new", reliable engines will reduce the speed of these ships by at least 10 knots, better 15. hi
  8. Altona
    Altona 10 September 2016 10: 37
    The ratio of the cost of weapons to the value of potential targets in the United States tends to infinity. Probably the idea was not bad, but the cost of the idea, especially the trimaran in the aluminum case, is prohibitive of course. And this is just a carrier, the chassis costs $ 521 million, so to speak, combat modules are optional and this is a plus to the base price for some more. If the marine carrier is comparable in price to a spaceship, then no economy can pull it. Of course, these ships have good range and speed characteristics, there are unmanned navigation capabilities, but the price is certainly prohibitive.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 10 September 2016 12: 49
      Trimaran is handsome. I would remove the second type.
      The lead ships of the series are always the most expensive.
      This ship has powerful minesweeper capabilities,
      submarine detection, strong radar with its own low EPR,
      large take-off deck and hangar for 3 helicopters or UAVs.
      Strengthening the take-off deck, you can even take the F-35B.
      Moreover, only 60 crew members.
      1. Monarchist
        Monarchist 10 September 2016 13: 22
        Offer the Israeli Navy to purchase one such "iron"
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 10 September 2016 15: 49
          Quote: Monarchist
          Offer the Israeli Navy to purchase one such "iron"

          In the case of a large series (which would reduce the price and operating costs) - they could very well have taken the trimaran in the version for the needs of the PLO and any sabotage issues. the problem is not that the ship itself is flawed to the limit. the problem is in the concept and logistics of its application.
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 10 September 2016 20: 59
          Imagine, as you intended.
          After all, the entire MSA of the trimaran is performed by the Israeli company Elbit.
          Israel first participated in the development of the key system of such a modern ship.
          But the price was great for our budget.
          1. Operator
            Operator 11 September 2016 00: 21
            And I wondered - who planted the US Navy pig with the equipment of littoral ships? laughing
      2. VP
        VP 11 September 2016 20: 16
        Powerful radar and low ESR are not very friendly with each other. Cross out something looking for a list of enthusiasm)
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 11 September 2016 22: 52
          Very friendly. wink
  9. Observer2014
    Observer2014 10 September 2016 10: 42
    Media: US Navy actually recognized the failure of the coastal zone project
    America don't stop! Rivet further "weapon of the future" laughing With such a budget, this is just the way to go.
  10. SeregaBoss
    SeregaBoss 10 September 2016 11: 02
    If Americans are not complete ignoramuses, these cuttlefish can be altered into a WIG or try. The wings are small, the engines in ... shove, make an ekranoplan marine. bully
  11. Vadim12
    Vadim12 10 September 2016 11: 03
    No no! The states are doing everything right - they are swapping loot for useless things. Keep it up!
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 10 September 2016 11: 35
    If the project was a failure, they would have stopped
    a program for the further construction of such ships.
    But that did not happen.
    I think it turned out the other way around. The ship turned out too
    "cool" for the Coast Guard. He walks easily in the ocean and
    packed with modern systems. Stupid to use it
    off the coast of the usa, catching drug dealers. Therefore, they are thrown into the Pacific Ocean, closer to China, where troubles are coming. But the armament and air defense must be changed for more complicated tasks.
  14. demiurg
    demiurg 10 September 2016 11: 44
    500 million per frigate, without weapons? You can’t forbid to live beautifully.
    Yes, and stillborn dead in fact. Pulling a ship at a cost of a third of the aircraft carrier to the coast for shelling, and the shot is not cheaper than uab or ur, in my opinion the idea is not ice. And given the fact that the add-ons are made combustible (balsa, plastic and amg) ...
    Given the progress of guided weapons and unmanned vehicles, it may be correct that we do not build ships in the ocean zone. The ship is being built for thirty to forty years. It is necessary to revise the very concept of a ship in the far sea zone, and only then begin construction.
    As a seasoned couch expert, I do not see a place for aircraft carriers of 100000 tons and super destroyers of 10000. Why should a box weigh 10k tons? For the sake of autonomy or BC? And in combat against a strong rival, will this super-destroyer have time to burn fuel oil and empty the cellar?
    Already 4+ can take off at full load from a site of 300-400 meters. All that remains is the issue of landing.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 10 September 2016 12: 29
      "it is correct that we do not build ships in the ocean zone. The ship is built for thirty to forty years" //////

      That's right, because there is no money.
      When the money appears, then "not" will be removed. smile
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 10 September 2016 13: 17
        Warrior, do you understand that the Burki will be converted to missile defense ships? They no longer actually protect the AUG from submarines, they do not shell the coast, Harpoons have been dismantled from them, although the air defense function is preserved.
        You yourself on occasion boast of drones. You think how long they will begin to autonomously search for submarines?
        Or do you think that Russia needs Leaders? At parkua, I dare to ask.
        What tasks did Zamwolt and LCS build for? Do they correspond to the vision of American strategists of future wars? If so, why is Burke still in the series?
        And the fact that there is no money for a large fleet, on the one hand it’s a shame, on the other hand it’s good.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 10 September 2016 20: 55
          In America, the entire fleet is divided into 10 AUGs. Burke
          work in the AUG, but they can also form a missile defense network,
          if needed.
          There are tasks where the aircraft carrier is redundant.
          For this, the Zumvolts are shelling the coast, and the LCS -
          stripping works for straits and sea lanes.
          1. LastLap
            LastLap 10 September 2016 22: 14
            Of course, I'm still an expert. Without taking China into account, the Baltic, Middle-earth and Black Sea are puddles. Augs and zombolts there, say, unacceptable losses. The Arctic without an icebreaker fleet - well, then Santa Claus helps. The Far East - what to shoot ????? Klyuchevskaya hill? T. E. Zooms and Augs - Drive Papuans? Hrenase pleasure!
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 10 September 2016 22: 24
              You yourself answered correctly - China.
              Large ships bake like pies there.
              This is the current headache of the Navy of America, not Russia.
  15. aszzz888
    aszzz888 10 September 2016 13: 51
    Well, where are our fellow forum users who have been battling with breasts, citing a lot of arguments that these troughs are almost the best in the world and forever! ?? sad
    Let anyone repent.
    But, campaign, we will not see this. tongue
  16. Homo
    Homo 10 September 2016 14: 54
    [quote] Already built ships (4 units) will turn into training ... / quote]
    [quote] At the same time, the military’s statement does not mention technical flaws identified in the ship’s systems, “because of which four coastal ships this year were disabled", - the portal notes. [/ Quote] laughing laughing laughing
  17. Yak28
    Yak28 10 September 2016 17: 33
    And the amer’s ships are bad, and the 5th generation planes are bad, the tanks are bad, the aircraft carriers are generally a relic of the past. But with us, what weapons do not take the best in the world and have no analogues. I hope not everyone believes in these tales wink
  18. TsUS-Air Force
    TsUS-Air Force 10 September 2016 18: 03
    in our imperial fleet, too, coastal defense battleships called battleships protected coasts
  19. Vladimir 1964
    Vladimir 1964 10 September 2016 23: 37
    Another blank information. As before, the site was more informative and more informative, but now it is just dummies and profanity, a shame on you, the owners. Your policy of payback due to attendance is disgusting.
  20. alex73s
    alex73s 10 September 2016 23: 38
    6574 on this article (the link was laid out above), I did not understand what kind of failure was involved, the ships will continue to build
  21. ydjin
    ydjin 11 September 2016 01: 41
    Yes, J. Lucas would have envied the design of these irons! Poured out "Death Stars" !!! laughing
  22. olafcik
    olafcik 11 September 2016 07: 23
    in the cut dough of the United States certainly in front of the planet