Military Review

In the US, ships of the coastal zone LCS have become the object of criticism

23

In the United States, criticism of the coastal zone warship development program LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) is intensifying. The relevant report on the LCS program was prepared by the Government Accountability Office GAO (Government Accountability Office).


Despite the implementation of the LCS program in the interests of the Navy, in which two corporations with different ship concepts (LCS-1 Freedom and Independance LCS-2) participate, unresolved problems continue to accumulate. The US Navy is taking measures to eliminate them on the basis of the results obtained from the operation of the lead ships of the two series under construction.

To date, test programs for LCS type ships remain unfinished. However, the Navy is already taking steps to eliminate the identified problems and to ensure a higher unification of the two types of ships and some adjustment of their tactical and technical elements.

Ships under construction should be equipped with special modules for solving various tasks. These modules should be quickly installed in the berths of ships and are oriented to the performance of anti-mine or anti-ship operations. However, at present, the deployment of these modules is being carried out in stages and it is unlikely that the Navy will finally formulate final requirements for them before their deployment in 2017 and 2019, respectively.

So far there are big uncertainties about the main tasks performed by the LCS. Nevertheless, the procurement plans for the LCS of the two concepts are being actively implemented and more than half of the number of ships planned for construction and purchase has been contracted to date.

The LCS ship consists of two main components. Among them, the ship itself (seaframe), as well as its target module (mission package), which provides combat use of the ship. The LCS ship can have three configurations due to the replacement of target modules: for anti-ship, anti-mine and anti-submarine operations.

The Navy plans to acquire the 52 ship of two options being built at US shipyards, as well as an 64 target module. The total cost of the LCS program is about 40 billion dollars in 2010 prices.

Based on an analysis of the LCS implementation program, financial management

GAO recommends that the US Department of Defense limit funding for the construction of the remaining non-contracted ships until the Navy completes research on their design and combat capabilities.

The Pentagon’s leadership is extremely disappointed with the GAO’s findings, since a slowdown in the rate of purchases of LCS ships may lead to an increase in their cost as well as the cost of target modules necessary to equip already built ships.
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NOMADE
    NOMADE 29 July 2013 10: 54
    +8
    Normally so - 52 ships! I hope the story with the quantity will be repeated by analogy with the F-22 .. When one quantity was planned, but the cost grew like a snowball and as a result the purchase plan decreased significantly. wink
    1. AVV
      AVV 29 July 2013 11: 05
      0
      So, the quantity does not always affect the quality and the F-35 confirms that !!!
    2. Dmitry 2246
      Dmitry 2246 29 July 2013 11: 50
      0
      The scheme is simple: a good amount - increase the price and you will have financial happiness.
      1. Ruslan_F38
        Ruslan_F38 29 July 2013 13: 47
        0
        The good news is, it will be even better if they close this program at all.
        52 high-speed ships, it was robust, they have about 60 knots in my speed.
        1. Gluxar_
          Gluxar_ 29 July 2013 23: 37
          -1
          Quote: Ruslan_F38
          The good news is, it will be even better if they close this program at all. 52 high-speed ships, it’s good, they have about 60 knots in my opinion.

          And what is good for us? Let them build at least 500 coastal ships. This is a class of corvettes; they are not involved in missile defense. A maximum of pirates can be driven away. They have a maximum speed of 45 knots.
  2. Edward72
    Edward72 29 July 2013 11: 16
    -5
    This is normal with regard to modularity. Once - a guard, once - an aircraft carrier.
    1. APASUS
      APASUS 29 July 2013 13: 58
      +2
      Quote: Edward72
      This is normal with regard to modularity. Once - a guard, once - an aircraft carrier.

      Normally, you have suffered so.
    2. Gluxar_
      Gluxar_ 29 July 2013 23: 39
      0
      Quote: Edward72
      This is normal with regard to modularity. Once - a guard, once - an aircraft carrier.

      In this case, modularity is a little more modest. The choice between a torpedo tube or an artillery mount, but not as you described. On Kerch, in my opinion, even 2003 they used the "modularity" of systems.
  3. NOMADE
    NOMADE 29 July 2013 11: 19
    +1
    Quote: Edward72
    This is normal with regard to modularity. Once - a guard, once - an aircraft carrier.

    This is more of a theory and a marketing move to justify the increased costs of building modular military equipment and additional modules. In fact, modularity has so far been little applied.
    Although the idea is good.
    1. Edward72
      Edward72 29 July 2013 11: 29
      0
      Regarding modularity, the truth is not bad, and it must be applied at the design stage, and not when the ships are already under construction
      1. Gluxar_
        Gluxar_ 29 July 2013 23: 55
        0
        Quote: Edward72
        Regarding modularity, the truth is not bad, and it must be applied at the design stage, and not when the ships are already under construction

        The idea is interesting, but how much is it in demand? How much do the capabilities of the ship change depending on the installed modules? Can an anti-submarine ship be turned into an anti-ship one? That is, to replace torpedo and bomb devices with gun mounts and containers for missiles? And how to replace detection systems and ammunition storage facilities. Or will everything have to be unified? Then this is a significant limitation for all subcontractors and anti-ship missiles and torpedoes should be of similar size. But what to do with otalny systems. If this is an anti-submarine ship, then all its sensors must be tuned to search for submarines, powerful hydroacoustic stations are not the same as radar. In general, there are always a lot of questions about unification and modularity. Effectively changing the composition of weapons depending on the mission and goals, but changing the "career guidance" of the ship is much more difficult, replacing only the weapons is not enough.
        1. Mhpv
          Mhpv 30 July 2013 00: 13
          0
          Quote: Gluxar_
          Effectively changing the composition of weapons depending on the mission and goals, but changing the "career guidance" of the ship is much more difficult, replacing only the weapons is not enough.

          How many trained crews must be kept for each module, changed the module, change the crew so what?
          1. Gluxar_
            Gluxar_ 30 July 2013 00: 34
            0
            Quote: mhpv
            How many trained crews must be kept for each module, changed the module, change the crew so what?

            That's it. Moreover, how will the backup crew support their training? it is much more efficient and much cheaper to rotate ships depending on the needs of a particular mission. The idea of ​​fully modular ships is from the category of computer games. In reality, technology has not yet reached this level and will not catch up in the coming years. The US is building another PR company about its technical dominance in the world. I think in which case the Iranians will spread everything to them as expected.
    2. il grand casino
      il grand casino 29 July 2013 11: 30
      +3
      The idea is good, the design is interesting, "modularity" is a fashionable word. From this it follows - taxpayers will be happy
      1. aviator_IAS
        aviator_IAS 29 July 2013 12: 29
        -1
        Quote: il grand casino
        The idea is good, the design is interesting, "modularity" is a fashionable word. From this it follows - taxpayers will be happy


        Rather, they THINK that they will be happy. And it will be as usual smile
    3. the polar
      the polar 29 July 2013 11: 45
      0
      Quote: NOMADE
      Quote: Edward72
      This is normal with regard to modularity. Once - a guard, once - an aircraft carrier.

      This is more of a theory and a marketing move to justify the increased costs of building modular military equipment and additional modules. In fact, modularity has so far been little applied.
      Although the idea is good.

      Yeah, a brilliant idea, on a cosmic scale. He entered the dock and changed the upper deck with all the superstructures in an hour, and from anti-mine he became anti-submarine. Something threw extra ballast into the hold and became a submarine. Ingenious!
    4. Gluxar_
      Gluxar_ 29 July 2013 23: 42
      0
      Quote: NOMADE
      This is more of a theory and a marketing move to justify the increased costs of building modular military equipment and additional modules. In fact, modularity has so far been little applied. Although the idea is good.

      Modularity is a tribute to modern fashion and nothing more. There is no economic effect from such a concept. In any case, we need redundant modules, we need personnel for their installation, warehouses for storage, monitoring and security systems and much more. And benefit only in smaller requests for the power plant. The universality of ship classes is much more priority.
  4. Mhpv
    Mhpv 29 July 2013 11: 40
    0
    Here is a good article about modular construction and littoral ships:
    http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2013-02-15/1_modul.html
    1. Sea snake
      Sea snake 29 July 2013 11: 51
      +1
      Here is another interesting article about the ships of the coastal zone.

      http://nnm.ru/blogs/smprofi/budushiy_korol_pribrezhnoy_zony/

      A lot of photos and videos.
  5. Edward72
    Edward72 29 July 2013 11: 42
    0
    Quote: il grand casino
    The idea is good, the design is interesting, "modularity" is a fashionable word. From this it follows - taxpayers will be happy

    Well, then the payers are mattress
  6. uhu189
    uhu189 29 July 2013 12: 24
    +1
    Only strange somehow, it follows from the article that the ships were ordered 52, and the modules for them were only 64. Those. there will be only 8 extra modules, or only 8 ships from 52 will be able to take advantage of the main advantage of their design. And the rest of them will swim with what they put on them. And what is the point then of such a project, if you use its potential only by a small percentage?
    1. Gluxar_
      Gluxar_ 30 July 2013 00: 30
      +1
      Quote: uhu189
      Only strange somehow, it follows from the article that the ships were ordered 52, and the modules for them were only 64. Those. there will be only 8 extra modules, or only 8 ships from 52 will be able to take advantage of the main advantage of their design. And the rest of them will swim with what they put on them. And what is the point then of such a project, if you use its potential only by a small percentage?

      This proyet complete failure, as well as f-22 and f-35. The United States began to play Hollywood and began to believe their own propaganda. There should have been more modules. However, the cost of ships has grown 3 times, and the cost of one module is already approaching the initial cost of the ship. As a result, the USA can get 55 ships with the possibility of replacing models with 8 of them, for the price of building 150 specialized ships of the same class with much greater capabilities on each.
  7. Russ69
    Russ69 29 July 2013 12: 38
    0
    Honestly, all this modularity and appearance can look and sound beautiful, but in practice it is still unknown what will turn out.
    Although the Americans have an unlimited printing press, why not experiment.
  8. Mhpv
    Mhpv 29 July 2013 14: 32
    +3
    It seems to me that this monster is best suited to perform tasks in the coastal zone:

    you just need to bring it to mind, taking into account all modern technologies and let the Americans build their catamarans.
    1. Gluxar_
      Gluxar_ 30 July 2013 00: 31
      0
      Quote: mhpv
      It seems to me that this monster is best suited to perform tasks in the coastal zone:

      Why did you draw such a conclusion? In general, it was designed to destroy the AUG. For the coastal zone, corvettes are ideally suited when interacting with aviation.