An unfortunate choice of words

Never before has such a ship caused so many smart people to say the most silly things.

From The Barbary Wars, to the Chesapeake Flotilla to the original reason the LCS went from concept to construction - think of what you need to fight in the "Littoral" where you will face the RPG-7 and the 23mm on the back of the truck, to the ASCM fired from someone's front yard, think about what is needed in a warship built for combat in the littorals. What word comes to mind? Is "elegant" even in the top 50?

From Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, 01/15;

UNDERSECRETARY SAYS LCS IS CENTERPIECE OF FLEXIBLE NAVY: The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is an elegant small battle network combatant, according to Robert Work, undersecretary of the U.S. Navy, who said he is convinced the ship will also lead the way technologically in international navies. “If you think of the surface fleet today, think of it as a series of boxes,” said Work, a former analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment (CSBA) and former Marine.

Ummmmmm ..... no. I will not. Boxes are for accountants and logisticians.

The Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) and LCS are small boxes with modular payload bays, he said. “You can put whatever you need on them.”

Sure you can, in very small quantities for a very small set of missions. And it all depends on what you define as "whatever you need."

If you find yourself, like the Canadians did in AFG, in desperate need of heavy armor (that their defense bureaucracy stated earlier were no longer needed in the "modern, transformational military") - then no; you cannot get "whatever you need." LCS and JHSV both have their uses - but they cannot and should not do all. When you start to sell a platform like a snake-oil cures-all, it might be time to back away a bit.

Larger vessels in the fleet also boast a similar level of flexibility, Work said. “The Navy has committed itself to a battle networking philosophy that’s immensely adaptable. Everyone will follow the U.S. Navy.”

Bob, bars have committed themselves to serving alcohol - it is all true. I'm not sure where you are going here as this has been true for a couple of centuries - in a fashion - and who is "everyone" and what does it have to do with the subject at hand? If we are already flexible - then why is the flexibility of LCS and JHSV "leading the way" - or are they just another tool to expand in the smaller tonnage range an established flexibility concept? Sure, not as sexy - but sure seems more accurate.

He dismissed the idea that irregular and hybrid warfare require a change in the fleet. “You can put any type of module you need on our ships,” he said. “They are immensely flexible.”

The last four words I can agree with - as it has always been true in our Navy.

The LCS in particular, he noted, has the capability to host a multitude of module types. “We can put what we want on the LCS,” Work said. But he does not see the need to spend money on every option right now. “We need to test it [first]. We need to understand what it can bring to the battle network.”

Ummmmm, no we can't - we can't put any module we want or need on our LCS Fleet that we plan on building. We are not buying enough Mission Modules to have a truly flexible LCS Fleet as it was sold .... and wait - what was that quote again?

“We need to test it [first]. We need to understand what it can bring to the battle network.”

That is true - but how does that match with this again?

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is an elegant small battle network combatant, ...

Might be. The PPT vignette says if could be. We hope it is. A few $billion more and we should be. I think it is. We paid enough - it better be.

Ick.

Tough job Bob - I wish you luck in making it happen.

But - let's parse the phrase that kept bounc'n around my nogg'n a bit.

... elegant small battle network combatant...

Where have I heard that before? Ah, ha! Here it is!

Optimized for those fully networked COE applications, FCS BC will operate both horizontally and vertically across the unit of action. The BC service-based architecture will be structured to execute a myriad of threads, with each stringing together small services from the BC tactical mission space containers. These small, elegant, highly optimized and very focused services will do the multitudes of tactical tasks that the UA will have to execute in performing its missions.

A small bit from the Bu11sh1t Bingo parade that was the Army's Future Combat System back in 2005. How did that work out for them?

The acquisition decision memorandum (ADM) released today cancels the Future Combat Systems Brigade Combat Team (FCS BCT) program and in its place directs the Army to transition to a modernization plan consisting of a number of separate but integrated acquisition programs to meet the secretary’s objectives. Those integrated programs include one to spin out the initial increment of the FCS program to seven infantry brigades in the near term and additional programs for information and communications networks, unmanned ground and air vehicles and sensors, and an integration effort aimed at follow-on spinouts to all Army brigades. The ADM also terminates the manned ground vehicle portion of the previous FCS program and directs an assessment with the Marine Corps of joint capability gaps for ground combat vehicles. The assessment will inform new requirements for Army ground combat vehicle modernization, leading to the launch of a new acquisition program in 2010.

Good luck with LCS and all that in NE Asian waters in FEB - much less in the coming storm that will be the Navy shipbuilding budget.