Today’s Times has a quick but interesting story on the Navy’s efforts to build a new fleet of ships — more than 90 of ‘em over the next fifteen years.
[[Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael] Mullen is seeking a fleet that will give the Navy a greater role in counterterrorism and humanitarian operations.
The plan calls for building 55 small, fast vessels called littoral combat ships, which are being designed to allow the Navy to operate in shallow coastal areas where mines and terrorist bombings are a growing threat. Costing less than $300 million, the littoral combat ship is relatively inexpensive. [It’s also going to be ready really soon, Sea Power magazine notes; late 2006, perhaps. Crews have already begun to train for the sip. — ed.]
Navy officials say they have scaled back their goals for a new destroyer, the DD(X), whose primary purpose would be to support major combat operations ashore. The Navy once wanted 23 to 30 DD(X) vessels, but Admiral Mullen has decided on only 7, the Navy official said. The reduction is due in part to the ship’s spiraling cost, now estimated at $2 billion to $3 billion per ship…
The choices have led some analysts to suggest that the Navy is de-emphasizing the threat from China, at least in the early stages of the shipbuilding plan. Beijing’s investment in submarines, cruise missiles and other weapon systems is expected to pose a major threat to American warships for at least a decade. That gives the Navy time, some analysts argue, to build capabilities that require less firepower and more mobility, a priority for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
“This is not a fleet that is being oriented to the Chinese threat,” usual suspect Loren Thompson tells the Times. “It’s being oriented around irregular warfare, stability operations and dealing with rogue states.“
But, Navy people: is that right? The Times isn’t so sure. As the paper notes, “the Navy would keep 11 aircraft carriers, just one fewer than the dozen it has maintained since the end of the cold war.“
THERE’S MORE: Those plans to grow the fleet to 313 ships, they “would require nearly one-fifth more money each year for shipbuilding,” according to Defense News. “One defense analyst said the plan would require the Navy to spend an average of $13.4 billion on new ships starting in 2007, a big jump from the $11 billion level of recent years.”
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
It’s not a question of choosing between China and LCS. The LCS concept complements the CHina scenario quite nicely. In any Asian or Pacific contingency involving China, the USN wipes out the Chinese navy in a matter of days and then deploys the littoral combat ships along the coast of the area of conflict, shielded by carrier aircraft operating from a few hundred miles offshore.
The only possible Chinese naval threat right now is subs that are at sea when the conflict begins. Anything else will never get out of port or never return to it.
I agree that LCS is complementary of any China-oriented vessels. LCS isn’t really as small as most people think. It’s close in size to a European frigate. And its modularity means it can be equipped for a broad range of missions, including ASW.
Besides, the Navy is still building the most powerful warships in history, the Burke-class destroyers. Soon it will have 62 in commission. That’s a force fully capable of taking on the Chinese Navy.
I didn’t understad the LCS till I read the comments above. My first question was how big it was. So it could be used in ASW, good. I think that ASW will be very importent very soon due to our chineise friedns and there new toys.
I would caution against overconfidence though, it always get us into trouble.
62 Burke-Class destroyers could probley take on half the worlds Navy combined. With our subs, aircraft carriers, and destroyers, our Navy will not have a problem. The only thing I am worried about is some nut decomissioning alot of our destroyers and such for ships set on small wars, thus leaving our navy vulnerable.
I currently serve on a Burke. DDG 86. It’s capabilities are incredible. So why can’t we continue to upgrade these? I read that our B-52 bomber force will continue in service until at least 2045. That’s a 100 years! Can’t take the billions to be spent on new ships and continue to upgrade what we have?
DID has done an in-depth feature on the LCS:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/10/the-usas-new-littoral-combat-ships-updated/index.php
They are about the size of a British Type 23 frigate, and come with a number of advantages:
* Modularity. They’re designed to switch from mission to mission very quickly by swapping out add-ons: ASW, land attack, mine-hunting, intelligence and scouting, Special forces insertion and support, etc.
* UAV/UUV carrier. The LCS is just part of it. The drones and underwater robots it will load and carry will be the rest.
* Cost: Much cheaper than an DDG-51 Arleigh Burke – and those destroyers will stay in the fleet until the 2040s. May operate as a small strike force with 1-3 LCS ships backed by 1-2 DDG-51s.
* Stealth. They’ll have a number of stealth features, which will help them get in closer to shore and even up rivers if necessary.
BTW, what you see above in a Norwegian Skjold (Shield) class hovercraft catamaran (yeah, you heard that right), not a US LCS.
The Navy should eye China & build ships accordingly & include new Blue Water ships for this threat alone.
Must do or risk another attack???
Improve our Sub Forces alone here.
Hybrid Littoral ships: 1/2 atomic, 1/2 gas turbine drive????
More can be done.
The reason the U.S. Navy needs to update, and build new destroyers is to stay one step ahead of the Chinese Navy. The Chinese Navy already has Aegis capabilities that they copied from the U.S. In order for the United States to stay safe, and capable of destroying these ships it needs to have something that can one-up the Aegis. This is why the Navy needs to spend money on new destroyers, instead of updating the old. There is so much technology that we can put into our ships, we would need an entirely new ship, instead of just overhauling the Arleigh Burke class.
CNO is to submit a 313 ship fleet proposal to OSD soon, and it shows that projected the FFG 7 class ships will all be gone by the time the LCS gets into series production. The LCS should be proven at sea first before CNO jumps the gun and has this done. Even this is a ‘here we go again’ approach to decommission a whole class of ships just to save money, then spend it on new technologies seems the way to go today, and a little bit wasteful. I think the DDX program should be deferred, and go to the smaller ships if we are going to fight an inshore war or wars in the future…there to me has been too much ballyhoo about them. Also do not Decommission any more 688′s we need them now more than ever…..
The Navy is trying to figure out how to stay modern with a budget that will shrink. Cuts in personnel is one area (unfortunately) they’re trying to save money. The LCS is a smart idea. DDX in my opinion can wait. Upgrade the Burkes, finish decomming FFGs as LCS ships come out. The LCS ships and DDG upgrades would require smaller crews (in theory) which would play into what the Navy is trying to do.
How about geting the iowa’s out once again and upgrading them. These ships strike fear and terror in our adversaries as there is no known way to conter them. They can take tremedous punishmet and dish out what they take three fold. simply the most devastating surface vessls ever built, just ask the elite Iraqi republican gaurds, oops, most are dead.
Upgrade the ASUW and the Air Defense capability. The LCS is too weak. Its SSM is a light weight wonder weapon and has it been tested against a FAST moving object moving 25+knots?Kinda important, if you think about it. The missile system for AD is ok, but why not improve it with expanded capacity via VLS? The modular system is a BAD decision. It will hours to a few days to change out the package. It would be far safer and smarter to have a 24 cell VLS with a variety of missiles. Also add torpedo tubes, just two tubes. This is better than a light weight toy that can only tackle a 12foot dingy