Sure, he was talking about fuel consumption – but I found this nugget coming out of NAVSEA’s senior leadership refreshing.

… I don’t think that there was a fully informed decision process arrived at in the development of LCS …

You should read the whole thing for the correct context of the quote above by Rear Admiral Eccles, Deputy Commander for ship design, integration and engineering at NAVSEA. It is a good start. Perhaps we can discuss survivability in the littoral next. Maybe.

Also, as for Galrahn’s question from yesterday,

So why is it the US Navy surface strike group lacks the capability to establish forward deployed sea surface capabilities to dominate the sea against the 21st century fishing profession of Somalia?

Part of the answer lies with the fact that numbers matter. When you have a limited budget, you can only have a certain number of hulls. If you make the decision to create a Tiffany Navy, then you have to accept the second and third order effects from that decision. If you also follow the mirage of the Cooperative Maritime Partnership (nee 1,000 Ship Navy) as well – then do not be shocked when the National Command Authority wants something done by the Navy we have to hobble together an inadequate excuse …. err …. answer.

Posted by CDRSalamander in Maritime Security
Tags: ,

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Byron

    “Tiffany Navy”…heh heh heh…Good one CDR. Perfect description. And like I said about LCS and LPD-17, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

  • sid

    If there is going to be a rollback on the speed requirement (something already floated by Moosally last year for the LCS-I) then what is the point of these two hull types?

    Stop the current program at the two hulls. Seems NAVSEA is daring to cross that “line in the sand” drawn in ~2003, so go back and put the unmanned vehicle mission into a SURVIVABLE COMBATANT hull….because there is no more lethal a battlespace than the littorals (and the notion that a ship spending most of her time there can “avoid harm’s way” is pure folly). One that is not immediately weight constrained at commissioning and still could most likely still bend on ~30 kts.

  • leesea

    Finally someone with common sense talks about basic rqmts problems with LCS!! Here is the kernel of the issue: if LCS are to be in position promptly for littoral operations, why is there a need for them to self-deploy to the AOR? Would not the Navy need them forward-deployed already in theater? Changing that rqmt means there would be less horsepower, less fuel load and possibly more weight available for armor, weapons & sensor systems. I think the tradeoff is obvious? But what do I know I just helped charter the first HSV for MSC back in 2002!

  • sid

    Yeah, what leesa said!

    The kinds of jobs Galrahn is envisioning suggests a hull much longer on endurance than high speed.

  • leesea

    I will take endurance over speed any day!! More armor, weapons and sensors can add too much weight though.