Littoral Combat Ship’s Survival in an Attack Questioned -- Bloomberg
The Navy’s $23 billion Littoral Combat Ship is less able to survive an attack than other U.S. warships, according to the Pentagon’s top weapons tester.
Revised standards adopted for the vessel intended to operate in shallow coastal waters “continue to accept the risk the crew would need to abandon ship under circumstances that would not necessitate that action” on other vessels, Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s director of operational testing and evaluation, said in a letter to Senator John McCain.
Gilmore, rebutting the Navy’s contention that he’s misstating the ship’s requirements, said they are “significantly different” from those for other ships that may face enemy forces. His stance adds to previous questions about the future of the vessel being built in two versions by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and Austal Ltd. (ASB)
Read more ....
More News On The U.S. Littoral Combat Ship Program
The littoral combat ship might not be living up to the Navy's promises -- Washington Business Journal
Austal in the crossfire as big guns battle -- The Australian
Littoral combat ship performance criticized in latest GAO report after deployment in Southeast Asia -- al.com
GAO examines LCS program -- FOX News
1 comment:
The problem with this program is that the man who authored the concept, Admiral Cebrowski, envisioned a Visby-Class warship; small, cheap, fast, stealthy, heavily-armed.
What we got was the LCS; huge, expensive, fast, not-stealthy, and lightly-armed.
Defense procurement at it's worst. There are good designes out there that would allow the LCS concept to work as Cebrowski envisioned, and I hope the Navy takes this opportunity to revisit the concept and get what they really need, not what Austal or Lockheed-Martin makes them THINK they need.
Post a Comment