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.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    29 July 2013 10: 54
    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
      0
      29 July 2013 11: 05
      So, the quantity does not always affect the quality and the F-35 confirms that !!!
    2. 0
      29 July 2013 11: 50
      The scheme is simple: a good amount - increase the price and you will have financial happiness.
      1. Ruslan_F38
        0
        29 July 2013 13: 47
        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_
          -1
          29 July 2013 23: 37
          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. -5
    29 July 2013 11: 16
    This is normal with regard to modularity. Once - a guard, once - an aircraft carrier.
    1. +2
      29 July 2013 13: 58
      Quote: Edward72
      This is normal with regard to modularity. Once - a guard, once - an aircraft carrier.

      Normally, you have suffered so.
    2. Gluxar_
      0
      29 July 2013 23: 39
      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. +1
    29 July 2013 11: 19
    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. 0
      29 July 2013 11: 29
      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_
        0
        29 July 2013 23: 55
        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. 0
          30 July 2013 00: 13
          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_
            0
            30 July 2013 00: 34
            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. +3
      29 July 2013 11: 30
      The idea is good, the design is interesting, "modularity" is a fashionable word. From this it follows - taxpayers will be happy
      1. -1
        29 July 2013 12: 29
        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. 0
      29 July 2013 11: 45
      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_
      0
      29 July 2013 23: 42
      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. 0
    29 July 2013 11: 40
    Here is a good article about modular construction and littoral ships:
    http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2013-02-15/1_modul.html
    1. +1
      29 July 2013 11: 51
      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. 0
    29 July 2013 11: 42
    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. +1
    29 July 2013 12: 24
    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_
      +1
      30 July 2013 00: 30
      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. 0
    29 July 2013 12: 38
    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. +3
    29 July 2013 14: 32
    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_
      0
      30 July 2013 00: 31
      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.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"