DOCSLIB.ORG

Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs June 13, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33741 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program Summary The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a relatively inexpensive Navy surface combatant equipped with modular “plug-and-fight” mission packages. The Navy wants to field a force of 55 LCSs. Twelve LCSs have been funded through FY2012, and the FY2013-FY2017 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) calls for procuring 16 more, in annual quantities of 4-4-4-2-2. The Navy’s proposed FY2013 budget requests $1,785.0 million in procurement funding for the four LCSs requested for FY2013. The Navy’s proposed budget also requests $102.6 million in procurement funding for LCS mission modules. There are two very different LCS designs—one developed by an industry team led by Lockheed, and another developed by an industry team that was led by General Dynamics. The Lockheed design is built at the Marinette Marine shipyard at Marinette, WI; the General Dynamics design is built at the Austal USA shipyard at Mobile, AL. The 20 LCSs procured or scheduled for procurement in FY2010-FY2015—LCSs 5 through 24— are being acquired under a pair of 10-ship block buy contracts. Congress granted the Navy the authority for the block buy contracts in Section 150 of H.R. 3082/P.L. 111-322 of December 22, 2010, and the Navy awarded the block buy contracts to Lockheed and Austal USA on December 29, 2010. The contracts are both fixed-price incentive (FPI) block-buy contracts. Current issues for Congress concerning the LCS program include the program’s mission modules, the combat survivability of the LCS, hull cracking and engine problems on LCS-1, and corrosion on LCS-2. Congressional Research Service Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 Background...................................................................................................................................... 1 The Program in General ............................................................................................................ 1 The LCS in Brief................................................................................................................. 1 Procurement Quantities....................................................................................................... 2 Two LCS Designs................................................................................................................ 2 Two LCS Shipyards ............................................................................................................ 4 Mission Package Deliveries and Initial Operational Capability (IOC) Dates..................... 4 Manning and Deployment Concept..................................................................................... 5 Unit Procurement Cost Cap................................................................................................. 5 Acquisition Cost.................................................................................................................. 6 Operation and Support (O&S) Cost .................................................................................... 6 Major Program Developments................................................................................................... 7 Growth in Sea Frame Procurement Costs ........................................................................... 7 2007 Program Restructuring and Ship Cancellations.......................................................... 8 2009 Down Select Acquisition Strategy (Not Implemented).............................................. 8 2010 Dual-Award Acquisition Strategy (Implemented)...................................................... 8 Changes in Mission Module Equipment ........................................................................... 10 FY2013 Funding Request........................................................................................................ 16 Issues for Congress........................................................................................................................ 16 Changes in Mission Module Equipment ................................................................................. 16 Combat Survivability............................................................................................................... 16 General .............................................................................................................................. 17 Shock Testing .................................................................................................................... 26 Hull Cracking and Engine Problems on LCS-1....................................................................... 28 Corrosion on LCS-2 ................................................................................................................ 34 Technical Risk ......................................................................................................................... 36 Sea Frame.......................................................................................................................... 36 Mission Packages .............................................................................................................. 37 Total Program Acquisition Cost .............................................................................................. 39 Separate SAR Reporting of Sea Frame and Mission Module Costs ....................................... 40 Operational Concepts .............................................................................................................. 40 Legislative Activity for FY2013.................................................................................................... 43 FY2013 Funding Request........................................................................................................ 43 FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310/S. 3254) ........................................ 43 House................................................................................................................................. 43 Senate ................................................................................................................................ 45 FY2013 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5856) ...................................................................... 47 House................................................................................................................................. 47 Figures Figure 1. Lockheed LCS Design (Top) and General Dynamics LCS Design (Bottom) .................. 3 Congressional Research Service Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program Tables Table 1. Past and Projected Annual Procurement Quantities........................................................... 2 Table 2. Construction Status of LCSs.............................................................................................. 4 Table C-1. Status of LCSs Funded in FY2005-FY2009 ................................................................ 60 Table E-1. Navy and CBO Estimates of Ship Procurement Costs Through FY2015 Under Down Select and Dual-Award Strategies.................................................................................... 82 Appendixes Appendix A. Summary of Congressional Action in FY2005-FY2012 .......................................... 49 Appendix B. Cost Growth on LCS Sea Frames in FY2007-FY2013 Budgets .............................. 51 Appendix C. 2007 Program Restructuring and Ship Cancellations............................................... 58 Appendix D. Down Select Acquisition Strategy Announced in September 2009 ......................... 61 Appendix E. Dual-Award Acquisition Strategy Announced in November 2010........................... 75 Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 87 Congressional Research Service Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program Introduction This report provides background information and potential issues for Congress on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a relatively inexpensive Navy surface combatant equipped with modular “plug-and-fight” mission packages. The Navy’s proposed FY2013 budget requests funding for the procurement of four LCSs. Current issues for Congress concerning the LCS program include the program’s mission modules, the combat survivability of the LCS, hull cracking and engine problems on LCS-1, and corrosion on LCS-2. Congress’s decisions on the LCS program could affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements, and the shipbuilding industrial base. Background The Program in General The LCS in Brief The LCS program was announced on November 1, 2001.1 The LCS is a relatively inexpensive Navy surface combatant that is to be equipped with modular “plug-and-fight” mission packages, including unmanned vehicles (UVs). Rather than being a multimission ship like the Navy’s larger surface combatants, the LCS is to be a focused-mission ship, meaning a ship equipped to perform one primary mission at any given time. The ship’s mission orientation can be changed by changing out its mission
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lcs 20 Completes Acceptance Trials
    COMPANY ANNOUNCEMENT 14 FEBRUARY 2019 LCS 20 COMPLETES ACCEPTANCE TRIALS AUSTAL (ASX: ASB) today announced its tenth Independence Class Littoral Combat Ship, the future USS Cincinnati (LCS 20) successfully completed acceptance trials in the Gulf of Mexico. Completing acceptance trials is the last significant milestone required by the U.S. Navy before the ship is delivered and commissioned into service. The trials involved the Navy conducting comprehensive tests to demonstrate the performance of the propulsion plant, ship-handling and auxiliary systems. "I can’t say enough about the positive results achieved by the Navy and industry team during these acceptance trials of the future USS Cincinnati. She’s well into her journey to being delivered to the Navy this summer and will provide needed and cost-effective warfighting capability to the fleet and the nation" Capt. Mike Taylor, US Navy LCS program manager said. “We are exceptionally proud of the LCS program, it is in a full rate of production and being delivered at a reliable and efficient pace. It is a real credit to our Austal USA team in Mobile,” David Singleton, Austal CEO said. Following delivery and commissioning, USS Cincinnati will join her nine sister ships already homeported in San Diego, USS Independence (LCS 2), USS Coronado (LCS 4), USS Jackson (LCS 6), USS Montgomery (LCS 8), USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10), USS Omaha (LCS 12), USS Manchester (LCS 14), the future USS Tulsa (LCS 16) and the future USS Charleston (LCS 18). Austal USA currently has four LCS under construction. Final assembly is well underway on the future USS Kansas City (LCS 22) and USS Oakland (LCS 24).
    [Show full text]
  • Oversight Review of the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program" December 8, 2016
    i [H.A.S.C. No. 114–145] OVERSIGHT REVIEW OF THE U.S. NAVY’S LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP PROGRAM HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION HEARING HELD DECEMBER 8, 2016 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 23–763 WASHINGTON : 2017 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri, Chairwoman JEFF MILLER, Florida JACKIE SPEIER, California K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia GWEN GRAHAM, Florida MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona HEATH BOPE, Professional Staff Member KATY QUINN, Professional Staff Member ANNA WATERFIELD, Clerk (II) C O N T E N T S Page STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Hartzler, Hon. Vicky, a Representative from Missouri, Chairwoman, Subcom- mittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................................................. 1 Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative from California, Ranking Member, Sub- committee on Oversight and Investigations ...................................................... 3 WITNESSES Gilmore, Dr. J. Michael, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Depart- ment of Defense ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate (LCS/FF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate (LCS/FF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress (name redacted) Specialist in Naval Affairs May 19, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL33741 Navy Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate (LCS/FF) Program Summary The Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate (LCS/FF) program is a program to procure a total of 40, and possibly as many as 52, small surface combatants (SSCs), meaning LCSs and frigates. The LCS/FF program has been controversial over the years due to past cost growth, design and construction issues with the first LCSs, concerns over the survivability of LCSs (i.e., their ability to withstand battle damage), concerns over whether LCSs are sufficiently armed and would be able to perform their stated missions effectively, and concerns over the development and testing of the modular mission packages for LCSs. The Navy’s execution of the program has been a matter of congressional oversight attention for several years. Two very different LCS designs are currently being built. One was developed by an industry team led by Lockheed; the other was developed by an industry team that was led by General Dynamics. The design developed by the Lockheed-led team is built at the Marinette Marine shipyard at Marinette, WI, with Lockheed as the prime contractor; the design developed by the team that was led by General Dynamics is built at the Austal USA shipyard at Mobile, AL, with Austal USA as the prime contractor. The Navy’s proposed FY2017 budget requested $1,125.6 million for the procurement of the 27th and 28th LCSs, or an average of $562.8 million for each ship.
    [Show full text]
  • TRIMARAN TECHNOLOGY . AFFORDABLE MULTI-ROLE CAPABILITY Austal-2.Ps 18/3/11 12:19 Pm Page 2
    TRIMARAN TECHNOLOGY . AFFORDABLE MULTI-ROLE CAPABILITY austal-2.ps 18/3/11 12:19 pm Page 2 he bold vision of a young company was borne out at How was this achieved? In the first instance, Austal was the end of 2010 when the US division of Australian- able to draw on its extensive commercial pedigree in high Theadquartered aluminium shipbuilder Austal was con- speed aluminium multi-hull vessels, including the design and tracted by the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) construction of the world’s largest trimaran. Second, it could to take the world’s most advanced multi-mission combatant demonstrate a fast and efficient design and manufacture phi- into series production. losophy that has realised a step change in naval shipbuilding In meeting the US Navy’s requirements for a fast, agile and practice. And third, it had the vision to articulate the multiple versatile Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), Austal has engineered a benefits offered by the trimaran hullform in terms of volume, seaframe design that breaks the bounds of naval convention. payload, powering, seakeeping and stability. Uniquely, the Austal LCS has successfully synthesised the These groundbreaking approaches to naval ship engineer- significant hydrodynamic and seakeeping advantages of the ing and production reflect Austal’s culture of innovation. And trimaran hullform, with the weight and powering efficiencies it is this same ability to think ‘outside the box’ that has given of a robust aluminium structure to create a shallow draft war- the company such confidence in the potential of aluminium ship that truly deserves to be called transformational.
    [Show full text]
  • Jhsv and Lcs Program Update
    COMPANY ANNOUNCEMENT 19 MAY 2013 JHSV AND LCS PROGRAM UPDATE Austal Limited (Austal) (ASX:ASB) is pleased to announce that Joint High Speed Vessel USNS Choctaw County (JHSV 2) successfully completed Acceptance Trials (AT) on May 3, 2013, in the Gulf of Mexico. This milestone achievement involved the performance of intense comprehensive tests by the Navy while underway, which demonstrated the successful operation of the ship’s major systems and equipment. This is the last significant milestone before delivery of the ship, which is expected in June. Austal Chief Executive Officer Andrew Bellamy said, “It is very pleasing to see that the JHSV program is maturing quickly as we drive operational improvements in our state of the art production line. JHSV 3 is expected to be launched in a matter of weeks and keel laying of JHSV 4 is scheduled for later this month”. This vessel is the second of ten JHSVs that Austal has been contracted by the Navy to build in its Mobile, Ala. shipyard. The Navy selected Austal as the prime for this $1.6 billion contract in 2008. "With these extensive tests, this new, highly-flexible ship class continues to demonstrate its performance ability and endurance", said Capt. Henry Stevens, JHSV program manager. "Leveraging commercial design and technology, JHSV 2 is building on the successes and lessons learned from USNS Spearhead (JHSV 1), while improving our processes for the entire JHSV program." The vessel is capable of transporting 600 short tons 1,200 nautical miles at an average speed of 35 knots and can operate in shallow-draft ports and waterways, interfacing with roll-on / roll-off discharge facilities and on / off-loading a combat-loaded Abrams Main Battle Tank (M1A2).
    [Show full text]
  • LCS Commissioning
    COMPANY ANNOUNCEMENT / NEWS RELEASE 18 January 2010 FIRST AUSTAL LCS JOINS US NAVY FLEET Thousands attend historic commissioning ceremony Austal-designed and built Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), “USS Independence” officially joined the operating forces of the United States Navy at an historic commissioning ceremony held near Austal’s Mobile, Alabama facility yesterday. Thousands of Navy officials, politicians, industry delegates and spectators joined in welcoming “USS Independence” into the US Navy fleet, where it will serve as a fast, agile, focused-mission platform designed for operation in near-shore environments. The ship is designed to defeat asymmetric "anti- access" threats such as mines, quiet diesel submarines and fast surface craft. US Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead, was the principal speaker at the ceremony, which marked the birth of a new breed of naval surface combatant. Utilising Austal’s proven low resistance trimaran hull form, “USS Independence” offers superior maneuverability and stability, endurance to travel 4,300 miles at 18 knots, three weapon zones, capacity for any two mission packages simultaneously, and a flight deck larger than any other surface combatant other than aircraft carriers. Austal Managing Director Bob Browning said the vessel would be an exciting addition to the US Navy’s fleet. “USS Independence is a new generation of combat ship. This technological leap in naval warfare will deliver significant advantages, not only in terms of increased capability, but also through vastly reduced operating costs over the life of the vessel,” Mr Browning said. For personal use only “For a shipbuilder that started in business in Australia just 21 years ago to successfully hand over such a revolutionary platform to the most powerful navy in the world is both a momentous achievement and an honour.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)/Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)/Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs January 5, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33741 Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)/Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress Summary The Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)/Frigate program is a program to procure a large number of LCSs and modified LCSs. The modified LCSs are to be referred to as frigates. Prior to December 14, 2015, Navy plans called for procuring a total of 52 LCSs and frigates. A December 14, 2015, memorandum from Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus directed the Navy to reduce the LCS/Frigate program to a total of 40 ships. The memorandum also directed the Navy to neck down to a single design variant of the ships starting with the ships to be procured in FY2019. (Two different variants of the LCS are currently built by two shipyards.) The first LCS was funded in FY2005, and a total of 26 have been funded through FY2016. The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget requested the procurement of three LCSs. The Navy estimated the combined procurement cost of these three ships at $1,437.0 million, or an average of $479.0 million each. The three ships had received a total of $80 million in prior-year advance procurement (AP) funding, and the Navy’s FY2016 budget requested the remaining $1,357.0 million needed to complete their combined procurement cost. From 2001 to 2014, the program was known simply as the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, and all 52 then-planned ships were referred to as LCSs.
    [Show full text]
  • Not for Publication Until Released by the House Armed Service Committee
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICE COMMITTEE STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAY MABUS SECRETARY OF THE NAVY BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON 16 APRIL 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 1 Secretary of the Navy 5/19/2009 - Present Ray Mabus Ray Mabus is the 75th United States Secretary of the Navy and leads America's Navy and Marine Corps. As Secretary of the Navy, Mabus is responsible for conducting the affairs of the Department of the Navy, including recruiting, organizing, equipping, training and mobilizing. Additionally, he oversees the construction and repair of naval ships, aircraft, and facilities, and formulates and implements policies and programs consistent with the national security policies established by the President and the Secretary of Defense. Secretary Mabus is responsible for an annual budget in excess of $170 billion and leadership of almost 900,000 people. Upon assumption of office and throughout his tenure, Mabus has prioritized improving the quality of life of Sailors, Marines and their families, decreasing the Department’s dependence on fossil fuels, strengthening partnerships and revitalizing the Navy’s shipbuilding program. Leading the world’s only global Navy, Mabus has traveled almost 670 thousand miles to over 95 countries to maintain and develop relationships with national and international officials and visit with Sailors and Marines forward deployed or stationed around the world. He has traveled to Afghanistan on ten separate occasions, in recognition of the sacrifice and service of Sailors and Marines deployed in combat zones. To prepare service members and their families for the high tempo operations of today’s Navy and Marine Corps, Mabus announced in 2012 the “21st Century Sailor and Marine” initiative, designed to build and maintain the most resilient and ready force possible.
    [Show full text]
  • USS Independence Trains Crew to Handle Aircraft Virginia, Announced That a Norfolk Federal Grand Photo by Lt
    ® Serving the Hampton Roads Navy Family Vol. 18, No. 15, Norfolk, VA FLAGSHIPNEWS.COM April 15, 2010 MCPON celebrates Submarine Force’s 110th birthday where he ate lunch with the crew, During MCPON’s visit to NAV- then toured USS Providence (SSN SUBSCOL, he spoke to a group 700), received of around a fi rst hand 1,400 Sail- look at the es- ors currently cape trainer at in school and the Naval Sub- talked about marine School the fi rst time (NAVSUB- he walked SCOL), and through the pinned a building as a couple of young Sail- Submarine or in 1981, Warfare pins how far things on newly qual- have come ifi ed Sailors “I’m continually amazed since then and from Philadel- at the enthusiasm, how he would phia and USS hard work and team trade places Toledo (SSN with anyone of 769). work of our Sailors and them to start “It was a its because of their his Navy ca- pretty big op- efforts that we are reer all over. portunity to more ready and more Also dur- have MCPON ing the trip, Master Chief Petty Offi cer of the Navy (MCPON) Rick West gives a HOOYAH with members from the U.S. Submarine capable than we have here today, not been in the history of MCPON Veterans Inc. (SUBVETS) after at the 47th anniversary of the USS Thresher (SSN 593) loss memorial service at the everyone can spoke at the U.S. Submarine Veterans WWII National Submarine Memorial East. say they were our great Navy” 47th anniversa- STORY AND PHOTOS BY (MCPON) (SS/SW) Rick D.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation FY 2012 Annual Report
    Department of Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation FY 2012 Annual Report Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation 3090 Defense Pentagon 5A1076 Washington, DC 20301-3090 [email protected] www.acq.osd.mil/dte-trmc Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 1.1 Developmental Test and Evaluation ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 DoD Test Resource Management Center ......................................................................................... 2 1.3 Adequacy of Resources.................................................................................................................... 2 2 DASD(DT&E) ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................5 2.1 Policy and Guidance Summary ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Measurable Performance Criteria .................................................................................................... 6 2.3 T&E Acquisition Workforce Development ..................................................................................... 8 2.4 Program Engagement .................................................................................................................... 11 2.5 DASD(DT&E) Focus Areas .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs August 10, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33741 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Summary The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a relatively inexpensive Navy surface combatant equipped with modular “plug-and-fight” mission packages. The Navy wants to field a force of 55 LCSs. Twelve LCSs have been funded through FY2012, and the FY2013-FY2017 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) calls for procuring 16 more, in annual quantities of 4-4-4-2-2. The Navy’s proposed FY2013 budget requests $1,785.0 million in procurement funding for the four LCSs requested for FY2013. The Navy’s proposed budget also requests $102.6 million in procurement funding for LCS mission modules. There are two very different LCS designs—one developed by an industry team led by Lockheed, and another developed by an industry team that was led by General Dynamics. The Lockheed design is built at the Marinette Marine shipyard at Marinette, WI; the General Dynamics design is built at the Austal USA shipyard at Mobile, AL. LCSs 1, 3, 5, and so on are Marinette Marine- built ships; LCSs 2, 4, 6, and so on are Austal-built ships. The 20 LCSs procured or scheduled for procurement in FY2010-FY2015—LCSs 5 through 24— are being acquired under a pair of 10-ship block buy contracts. Congress granted the Navy the authority for the block buy contracts in Section 150 of H.R.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-16-201, Littoral Combat Ship: Knowledge of Survivability and Lethality Capabilities Needed Prior to Making Major Funding
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees December 2015 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP Knowledge of Survivability and Lethality Capabilities Needed Prior to Making Major Funding Decisions This report is an unclassified version of a report prepared in July 2015. All material in this report reflects information as of July 2015. GAO-16-201 December 2015 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP Knowledge of Survivability and Lethality Capabilities Needed Prior to Making Major Funding Decisions Highlights of GAO-16-201, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found GAO has reported extensively on LCS—an over $34 billion Navy The lethality and survivability of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is still largely program (in 2010 dollars) consisting of unproven, 6 years after delivery of the lead ships. LCS was designed with two different ships and interchangeable reduced requirements as compared to other surface combatants, and the Navy mission packages. In February 2014, has since lowered several survivability and lethality requirements and removed the Secretary of Defense, citing several design features—making the ship both less survivable in its expected survivability concerns, directed the threat environments and less lethal than initially planned. The Navy is Navy to assess design alternatives for compensating for this by redefining how it plans to operate the ships. a possible LCS replacement. In 2014, the Navy conducted its first operational test of an early increment of the House and Senate reports for the surface warfare mission package on a Freedom variant LCS, demonstrating that National Defense Authorization Act for LCS could meet an interim lethality requirement.
    [Show full text]