The United States Navy and its Littoral Combat Ship Debacle

While it got almost no coverage in the mainstream media, a recent story from FreightWaves is cause for concern, particularly for American taxpayers.  For the purposes of this posting, I will provide significant background information so that you can better understand the severity of the problem.

Let's open by looking at a video showing the launching of the USS Billings back in July 2017:

Here is a video showing the new Freedom class of Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) in action, in this case, the seventh ship, the USS Wichita (LCS-7_ which was commissioned on January 12, 2019:

Littoral combat ships are designed to operate in shallow waters (i.e. near shore waters) that prevent the access of larger naval vessels.  The current iteration has a sprint speed in excess of 40 knots, draft of less than 20 feet and have an unfueled range of more than 3500 nautical miles at a speed of 14 knots.   

As shown on this screen capture, the Freedom-variant of the Littoral Combat Ship is being built by Lockheed Martin:

Here is a graphic showing the production status of the Freedom-Variant Littoral Combat Ship:

Lockheed Martin touts the economic impact of its contract to build this version of the LCS:

The first LCS was procured in 2005, four years after the start of the LCS program on November 1, 2001.  In total, Lockheed Martin has built and launched 11 Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship with seven ships being commissioned and an additional five in either pre-production or under contract to be built.  Freedom-variant ships are oddly numbered (i.e. LCS-1, LCS-3).  Another variant of the LCS, the Independence-variant, is being built by Austal USA (originally General Dynamics) and these ships are evenly numbered (i.e. LCS-2, LCS-4) which just delivered LCS-20 to the U.S. Navy as shown here:

Here is a photo showing the two iterations of the LCS:

According to the Congressional Research Service, the Navy has planned to procure a total of 35 LCSs and fiscal 2019 will be the final year of procurement of these vessels.  It is interesting to note that the three LCSs in fiscal 2019 are expected to cost taxpayers $1.571 billion or $523.7 million each.  Here is a table showing the annual LCS procurement quantities:

According to an analysis by the National Priorities Project, here is the expected cost of the LCS program for fiscal 2012:

While all of this sounds absolutely wonderful, the LCS program has been fraught with cost overruns and significant mechanical failures.  According to Military.com, three of the Freedom class ships have suffered engine casualties with the USS Freedom, the first Freedom-variant LCS to be launched, requiring an engine replacement or rebuild after a seawater leak resulted in damage.  A seal in the seawater pump failed, allowing seawater to contaminate the engine lubrication system, damaging the ship's second main propulsion diesel engine.  After two years   , the ship finally returned to service in 2018.  The USS Fort Worth also had an engine "casualty" thanks to possible user error when lubrication oil was not appropriately applied to the ship's combining gears during startup.  The USS Milwaukee underwent engine repairs after it broke down on a trip from San Diego to Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, thanks to the failure of a clutch to disengage when the ship was switching from its gas turbine to its Diesel engine drive system.  

These ships were designed to be the backbone of the future U.S. Navy.   That said, it would not appear that the Navy has any confidence in the LCS program.  Here is a key quote from a report from fiscal year 2017 by the U.S. Navy on its Littoral Combat Ship program:

"Survivability testing and preliminary analyses on both LCS variants continue to demonstrate that neither LCS variant is survivable in high intensity combat. Although the ships incorporate capabilities to reduce their susceptibility to attack, testing of analogous capabilities in other ship classes demonstrated that such capabilities have limited effectiveness in high intensity combat. As designed, the LCS lacks redundancy and the vertical and longitudinal separation of vital equipment found in other combatants. These features are required to reduce the likelihood that a single hit will result in loss of propulsion, combat capability, and the ability to control damage and restore system operation." (my bold)

The report also noted the following:

"The Navy commissioned LCS Freedom in 2008, and LCS Independence in 2010. Both LCS seaframes have limited anti-ship missile self-defense capability. The Navy has not fully tested these combat systems and the Navy does not plan to conduct further air warfare operational testing of Freedom seaframes 1 through 15 in their current combat system configuration. The Navy has accepted the risk of continued operation with a combat system that is not operationally tested. DOT&E cannot fully assess the operational effectiveness and suitability of the combat system aboard each variant without further testing.

 The Navy halted all work to develop a PRA M&S suite of LCS combat systems in FY15 because some combat system element models (e.g., radars) were not available. The lack of combat system element models persists."

The Navy had plans to create 44 mission modules (i.e. combat system element models) that would be capable of rapid changing over of weapon systems (i.e. for mine hunting, anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare) but none of these modules was ready in late 2018.  At that point, the ships were equipped with a 57 mm gun, the same as Coast Guard vessels.

It would appear that as a consequence of this rather significant set of issues, in July 2017, the Navy posted the official requirements for a new "hull" to take on coastal combat operations as shown here:

This platform will "...employ unmanned systems to penetrate and dwell in contested environments, operating at greater risk to gain sensor and weapons advantages over the adversary.  The FFG(X) will be capable of establishing a local sensor network using passive onboard sensors, embarked aircraft and elevated/tethered systems and unmanned vehicles to gather information and then act as a gateway to the fleet tactical grid using resilient communications systems and networks."

It appears that the FFG(X) dosing will go well beyond what the LCS can do in surface warfare...hopefully.  The Navy's proposed fiscal 2020 budget requests funding for the first FFG(X)

Now, in closing, let's finally look at the news item from FreightWaves:

It's interesting to see that a program that just a decade old from the time of first delivery certainly has not met with great success.  Fortunately for the manufacturers, there is a bottomless bucket of taxpayers' dollars to draw from.

Let's close with this quote about the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship program from Defense Industry Daily:

"Exploit simplicity, numbers, the pace of technology development in electronics and robotics, and fast reconfiguration. That was the US Navy’s idea for the low-end backbone of its future surface combatant fleet. Inspired by successful experiments like Denmark’s Standard Flex ships, the US Navy’s $35+ billion “Littoral Combat Ship” program was intended to create a new generation of affordable surface combatants that could operate in dangerous shallow and near-shore environments, while remaining affordable and capable throughout their lifetimes.

It hasn’t worked that way. In practice, the Navy hasn’t been able to reconcile what they wanted with the capabilities needed to perform primary naval missions, or with what could be delivered for the sums available. The LCS program has changed its fundamental acquisition plan 4 times since 2005, and canceled contracts with both competing teams during this period, without escaping any of its fundamental issues. Now, the program looks set to end early. This public-access FOCUS article offer a wealth of research material, alongside looks at the LCS program’s designs, industry teams procurement plans, military controversies, budgets and contracts."

Where is Iran's Navy Headed?

With Iran feeling the brunt of yet another round of sanctions signed by U.S. President Donald Trump, Iran's response is rather unique given its responses to past sanctions.

According to Fars News Agency,  Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari declared a new strategy to protest against what Iran perceives as a program of illegal sanctioning.  Here is a quote from the article:

"TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari declared plans to dispatch a flotilla of warships to the waters West of the Atlantic Ocean in the near future.

"No military official in the world thought that we can go round Africa to the Atlantic Ocean through the Suez Canal but we did it as we had declared that we would go to the Atlantic and its Western waters," Rear Admiral Sayyari said, addressing a ceremony in Tehran on Sunday.

He said US officials appeared on the CNN and used the world map to show how far is the trajectory of such a mission and explain in military terms that it would be impossible for Iran to traverse through waters from its Southern port city of Bandar Abbas to the Atlantic. "But we moved into the Atlantic and will go to its Western waters in the near future".

"Then it would be us to show the trajectory of our sail on the map to prove to them that we have managed to do so and that we, no doubt, will do whatever we say and are afraid of now power," Rear Admiral Sayyari said in sarcastic remarks.

In relevant remarks in April, Rear Admiral Sayyari announced the country's plans to expand naval presence in international waters, and underlined the Iranian warships' redeployment in the Atlantic Ocean.

"Redeployment in the Atlantic Ocean, intelligence superiority, development of communications, progress in the development of Makran coasts and building new vessels are among the Navy's plans in the current (Iranian) year (started on March 21)," he said.

He also referred to the Iranian Navy's powerful presence in the high seas, and said, "3,900 ships have been escorted by the Navy's fleets of warships sent to the free waters."

The Iranian Navy deployed a flotilla of warships in the Atlantic Ocean in November.

"For the first time, the 44th flotilla comprised of Alvand and Bushehr destroyers could sail around the African continent and enter the Atlantic Ocean," Admiral Sayyari told reporters in Tehran at the time." (my bold)

In recent years, Iran has been increasing its naval presence in international waters to protect naval routes and provide security for merchant vessels and tankers as part of the international efforts to combat piracy, particularly in the Gulf of Aden.  On February 22, 2011, Iranian warships sailed through the Suez Canal for the first time since 1979, a move that caused consternation in Israel.

Iran's first deployment to the Atlantic Ocean took place in January 2014 at which time a flotilla consisting of the Khark (aka Kharg) helicopter carrier and Sabalan destroyer.  Here is a photo of the Khark helicopter carrier:

Iran's navy has achieved significant progress in the development of its homegrown navy.  The Iranian Navy launched its first domestically produced 1420 ton destroyer, Jamaran, in February 2010 as shown in this photo:

In March 2015, Iran unveiled its state-of-the-art domestically produced destroyer, Damavand as shown in this photo:

The Damavand is now Iran's most powerful warship; it is equipped with advanced anti-aircraft, anti-surface and anti-subsurface missile systems and is equipped with advanced cruise missiles, sea-launched drones, torpedoes and 40 mm and 76 mm cannons.  It is capable of hitting a top speed of 30 knots and can track and target aerial, surface and subsurface targets simultaneously.   

According to the Iran Project, in November 2016, the Navy's 44th flotilla of warships sailed around the Cape of Good Hope, the southern most point in Africa and into the southern Atlantic Ocean.  The flotilla included a Bushehr logistical warship and Alvand destroyer/frigate.  Here is some additional information on the Alvand class:

At the time of the deployment and as it has in the past, the Iranian Navy made it clear that their presence in international waters was aimed at extending a message of peace and friendship at the same time as they were demonstrating the expanding power of their naval forces.

While it is quite obvious that the United States still has the most powerful naval forces in the world by a relatively wide margin, it is interesting to see that Iran has made significant strides in the development of its homegrown naval equipment, sanctions be damned.  At the very least, Iran's navy could prove to be the thorn in the paw of the lion.  At the very least, it will be fascinating to watch Washington's response to the presence of Iranian naval vessels in international waters off the east coast of the United States.   

China's Latest Weapon - The Dong Feng 21D

A recent article in the Financial Times suggests notes that there could finally be a very significant game-changer in the struggle to stay atop the world's armed forces.  While the United States has become quite used to its basically unchallenged position as the world's sole superpower, it appears as though China has unveiled its "carrier killer" missile during its marking of the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II.

Let's open with this map showing China's current defensive layers:

China and its navy (People's Liberation Army (Navy) or PLA (N) is currently primarily focussed on the "near seas" where it is dealing with disputes over the sovereignty of various islands in the South China Sea.  China also has a long term goal of reunification with Taiwan and hopes to prevent a third party from intervening in this "internal matter".  

China's possession of a very advanced, high hypersonic anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) has been rumoured since 2009.  For many years, experts have postulated about the existence of a Chinese weapon that would be capable of destroying United States aircraft carriers at a greater range than China's current inventory of missiles.  The existence of this ASBM was first discovered on a posting on a Chinese blog and was translated on the Information Dissemination website.  At that time, it was believed that the Dong Feng 21 (DF-21) (translated as "East Wind") was the world's first land-based, long range anti-ship ballistic missile that could target a moving aircraft carrier.  As it turned out, the current iteration of the Dong Feng, the DF-21D, is a two stage missile which uses a solid propellant, is road mobile and has a range of at least 2000 kilometres.  It is large enough to carry a warhead that could inflict significant damage, possibly fatal, on an aircraft carrier.  Modifications have been made to the warhead that lower its radar signature.  As well, the missile has the ability to seek active and passive radar as well as infrared signatures.  It is key to note that this missile could be used to prevent the United States fleet of carriers from intervening in the strait between Taiwan and mainland China.

Here is a photograph of the DF-21D aka the "carrier killer":

The DF-21/ASBM will target "enemy ships" using:

1.) Reconnaissance satellites that have the ability to scan ships.

2.) OTH Radar that has a range of 800 to 3000 kilometres.

3.) Unmanned aerial vehicles (drones). 

In 2011, People's Liberation Army (PLA) Chief of Staff Chen Bingde confirmed that China was developing the Dong Feng 21D ASBM and it was reported that the missile had a range of 2700 kilometres which would give it the coverage shown on this map:

You will note that the DF-21D would be capable of striking as far away as Indonesia and completely covers the South China Sea, the area where China has been particularly active in recent years.  The missile is capable of hitting moving target at sea and travelling at Mach 10 or ten times the speed of sound.  This would make it difficult if not impossible for the U.S. to defend its fleet or to retaliate.  Two options for retaliation are available; 

1.) Raytheon's Tomahawk missile which is not particularly designed for mobile or floating targets and would require a significant upgrade before they are a match for the Chinese Navy.  They are also relatively low tech meaning that they could easily be shot down using more sophisticated defense systems.

2.) Lockheed Martin's Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) which cost about $2 million each and have a shorter range and smaller payload than the Tomahawk.  The LRASM is not expected to be deployed for another three years.

On top of the DF-21D, the Office of Naval Intelligence has also revealed that China has deployed its new YJ-18 supersonic anti-ship cruise missile on both Luyang III destroyers, Song/Yuan class diesel submarines and Shang-class nuclear attack submarines, posing a major threat to U.S. and allied vessels.  As well, over the past year, China has begun building or launched more than 60 naval ships and a similar number of warships.  The key focus of the Chinese navy is its anti-surface ship warfare and the development of the YJ-18 with its range of 111 miles could prove to be difficult for U.S. ships to defend against.

With China's recent revelation that it expects that there will ultimately be a conflict with the United States as China seeks to flex its military and naval "muscles", the unveiling and implementation of the Dong Feng 21D will likely prove to be a game changer for both sides.