Twitter Facebook Google RSS
National Defense > Blog > Posts > Navy Secretary Defends Littoral Combat Ship
Navy Secretary Defends Littoral Combat Ship
By Valerie Insinna

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus delivers remarks on the flight
deck of the littoral combat ship USS Freedom

The littoral combat ship continues to fend off criticism about its cost and survivability, but the Navy’s top civilian leader said the arguments against it are not new.

The first ship of any class has always been the subject of intense scrutiny, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said. No vessel operates perfectly its first time out to sea, and the Navy is fixing problems on the LCS as they arise.

"Every time the Navy has built a new ship, two things have happened,” he told reporters June 13. “We've had issues with the first or second ship in the class, and a lot of people inside the Navy and outside the Navy hate it because it's not what we're used to.”

The first littoral combat ships, Lockheed Martin’s USS Freedom and Austal USA’s USS Independence, were designed as developmental ships whereby the Navy could evaluate how they performed and what changes needed to be made, he said.

The Freedom currently is on its first deployment to Southeast Asia. It left Singapore on June 11 to begin exercises in the region after participating in the International Maritime Defence Exhibition.

Navy officials saw the deployment as a chance to vindicate the LCS, but the Freedom has run into several difficulties so far, including a power outage in March on its way to Singapore and an engine problem in May that forced it to return to port.

Mabus’ comments will likely do little to quell concerns from Congress. The House Armed Services Committee recently passed an amendment to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act that would require the Government Accountability Office to study the Singapore deployment and any resulting changes that the Navy recommends to the ship or its modules.

“The committee has significant concerns regarding the levels of concurrency associated with the mission modules and the expected delivery of the littoral combat ship seaframes,” the amendment said.

Congressional problems with the cost of the program often are due to “old numbers or old metrics that we’ve fixed,” Mabus said. Congress in 2002 was told the cost per vessel would run $220 million, but that was based on the idea that the ships would use a commercial hull. Upgrading to a military hull raised the price, he said.

The Navy so far has awarded contracts to buy 10 ships of each variant, and the price of each ship will decrease over time, Mabus said. The first ships cost $439 million, while the last will cost $350 million.

Mission modules — which will include systems for mine countermeasure, surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare that can be swapped out as needed — are being produced for less than what was expected in 2002, he added.

"The weapons modules [in 2002] were seen as being almost as expensive [as the ship], being in the $200 million range,” he said. “That has turned out not to be the case." The countermine module is about $100 million, the other two are in the $20 million to $30 million range, he said.

Mabus maintained the vessel’s modularity will help it adapt to a range of missions — even if the service doesn’t know exactly what those are. Modules for the Marine Corps and naval special forces are being considered, he said.

"The notion that it doesn't have a mission, that it's a ship in search of a mission — I think that's one of its greatest strengths,” Mabus said. “We don't know what we're going to face.”

One of the things the Navy is looking at during the Freedom’s deployment is what equipment is needed so that technicians can quickly change mission modules, he said. A classified Navy report released earlier this year suggested that it would take sailors longer than anticipated to switch out modules, but Mabus asserted that it is still quicker to make such changes on an LCS than it is on other ships.

“If you put a weapons system on a DDG [guided missile destroyer], and you find out this just isn't what we need, you [have] to send the ship to the shipyard, you’ve got to rip stuff out,” he said.  It “takes a year. It's very expensive.”

Photo Credit: Navy


There are no comments yet for this post.
Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *



Name: *

eMail *

Comment *


Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.

Characters *


Legal Notice *

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.



Bookmark and Share