Which way now for the LCS?


Is the Navy preparing to throw the towel in on the off-criticized LCS?

It's certainly starting to look like it. From a recent news report:

"Several 7th Fleet officials told us they thought the LCS in general might be better suited to operations in the Persian Gulf," said a Government Accountability Office report.
GAO officials said the controversial LCS lacks the speed, range and electronic warfare capabilities to function in the geographic expanse that is the Pacific theater. As a result, the Navy should consider buying fewer LCS if the vessel is unable to perform in the Pacific, according to Bloomberg's report.

Story.

The LCS has been criticized for any number of reasons, but mostly its vulnerability to attack in a heavy combat situation - which, after all, is where warships are supposed to go. But in fairness, the "L" stands for littoral - as in shallow, as in coastal, as in waters near land rather than the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean . . . waters like, er, the Persian Gulf.

The LCS's mission requirements seem to have expanded to the point where it's looked at as a destroyer rather than a modern minesweeper or gunboat. The real problem here is that a) the Navy needs more destroyers, which the LCS can't replace, and b) the LCS is much more expensive than the ships traditionally used in littoral roles. The solution - build more destroyers, and much cheaper (but less flexible) littoral craft.